Natural Resources Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

You're probably aware that the NDP recently sided with the Conservatives to announce that they would end carbon pricing.

Do you think this is a responsible thing to do in Canada when we know the situation that exists with climate change today?

[Julia Levin]

I can't comment on the details of the NDP's climate plan. I didn't actually listen to the press conference in detail, so I don't know exactly what was said. I only know what was reported on.

I think every political party in Canada has to be using everything in their tool kit to fight the climate crisis.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I don't think there is a plan. I'm not aware of it either.

My next question is for Mr. Giroux.

Our cap on emissions in the oil and gas sector and the carbon price have been critical to us in reducing the country's emissions. When will the PBO table its report on carbon pricing? I know you've been working on it.

[Yves Giroux]

We have said that we plan on releasing that by the end of this calendar year, but I think we can be a bit more precise now. By early November, it should be out.

I'm hoping it will be before that, but with what we have on our work plan, I can optimistically say it's going to be before the end of the calendar year and, hopefully, by early November.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Can you speak to your analysis on low-income and middle-income Canadians? For us, we're seeing that they're mostly benefiting from the carbon price and the carbon price rebates.

Can you also tell us if your study is actually finding that eight out of 10 Canadians are getting more money back than they're paying out in carbon pricing?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I want to remind members which study we're on here. We're studying the Trans Mountain expansion project. Maybe we could stick to that topic. That would be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for the point of order.

I'll go back to Ms. Jones.

Ms. Jones, go ahead.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask Mr. Giroux to answer that question, please.

[Yves Giroux]

When we released our initial reports—the multiple reports—looking at the carbon tax paid versus the Canada carbon rebate paid to individuals, we found that for the lower and second quintiles, generally speaking, these indeed receive more in terms of rebate than what they pay directly and indirectly in carbon tax. That will not change with our revised report.

The numbers that could change—and we have not finished the analysis yet—are the ones where we also include the economic impact of the fuel charge on the incomes of these different income quintiles.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

My next question is on the value of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

In your analysis of cost and what the government is investing and has invested to complete the project, are you also looking at the outcomes of that project, what the value of it is to Canadians, the jobs that have been created and the return on investment—where real value is attached to this?

Will we be seeing that in the analysis you're working on right now?

[Yves Giroux]

We haven't done a cost-benefit analysis overall. However, we mentioned in previous reports and testimonies to House and Senate committees that there are factors beyond just the numbers and the value of the Trans Mountain pipeline that justify or could be used to justify the decision to purchase such an asset.

An example could be a better price for the commodity on world markets by the producer through additional means of getting their products to tidewater, as is often said.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Giroux.

Thank you, Ms. Jones, for your line of questioning.

We'll now go to Mr. Simard for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Giroux, I would like to hear your thoughts, as I am wondering how to frame the government's action when it comes to the pipeline. You'll understand what I'm saying.

The federal government provides the oil and gas sector with a huge amount of support. It's even hard to distinguish between efficient and inefficient subsidies. I think even the government doesn't want to define what it means by an inefficient subsidy to the oil sector.

When I see the purchase of the pipeline and the staggering costs associated with it, the infamous $34 billion, I can't help but think that Kinder Morgan didn't want to make that investment in this infrastructure, which is essential for the oil and gas sector, because it probably didn't think it was profitable.

If we put all that together, can we not conclude that this $34 billion ultimately supports the oil and gas sector? Would you agree with that?

[Yves Giroux]

The government has indicated that this is indeed a way for it to support the oil industry. So it would be difficult to say otherwise.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Do you think it would be possible, if it is not too complex, to add a table in your report that would provide an overview of all the financial support provided to the oil and gas sector?

[Yves Giroux]

Several months or even years ago, we conducted an analysis on the value of certain tax incentives provided mainly, or even exclusively, to the oil and gas sector.

However, I would be a little reluctant to add these elements to a report intended to enlighten parliamentarians on a specific topic. We could do a parallel read, but with reference to our previous analyses. I don't want to mix apples and oranges. However, I am always willing to listen to parliamentarians' preferences or recommendations.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have a quick question for Ms.—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You are over time. Thank you.

Now, we will go to Mr. Angus for the last two and a half minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to get a response from Ms. Levin. It seems that the Liberal government's climate plan is kind of like the “drinking your way to sobriety” school. They invested $34 billion in massively increasing oil production, while saying that somehow they were going to magically lower emissions.

The Canada Energy Regulator report showed that, with the way the Liberal government plan was, we'll basically be producing the same amount of oil in 2050 as we are today. Then Minister Wilkinson got upset and made them rewrite it. Then, they came in with a lower number, with the so-called unicorn and rainbow scenario, which included a several-thousandfold increase in direct air carbon capture. I had to look up “direct air carbon capture”. It was first identified 25 years ago and it's never been used, but, oh, there's a several-thousandfold increase.

What we have in the real world are massive increases now, thanks to TMX, in the Alberta tar sands.

Ms. Levin, what are the impacts of that massive increase—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

—and what will it mean for the—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus, could I ask you to hold on for one second? We have a point of order from Mrs. Stubbs.

Mrs. Stubbs, go ahead on a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have just a quick point of science and facts. There is no tar in the oil sands.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. I'm going to go back to you, Mr. Angus, because that's debate.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, there never was a sabre-toothed tiger that got stuck and was found in oil sands, but we'll continue.

Ms. Levin, could you explain what you think the impact of this massive increase in emissions, from 500,000 to 800,000 barrels a day, will mean not just for the environment but also for the credibility of an emissions cap?