Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 4th, 2024

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding of process and procedure is that you don't just resume debate because someone has asked to resume debate. There actually has to be a process followed, as well as a vote.

It is timely that this government member doesn't want to hear this. We're here to talk about TMX. We have witnesses here. They want to shut down debate and get back to something that is an attack on our home province.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Goodridge, thank you for your point of order.

As Mr. Jowhari has brought forward a motion to resume debate, this will go right to a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will go back to where we were with the questions.

We will go back to Mr. Jowhari. Go ahead.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay, so we're back on TMX.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair, how much time do we have?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have about a minute.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay, great.

Now, let's go to Finance. We were talking about the processes and what might happen over the next couple of years that we need to take into consideration when we are positioned to be able to do the final evaluation. Can you talk about those elements?

[Greg Reade]

Chair, thank you for the question.

I think, first and foremost, is the conclusion of the tolls process that's in front of the CER right now. It's important for evaluation.

As I mentioned, just the track record of the operations, which have been going well so far, will be important for a potential purchaser to understand, as well as utilization of the pipe—so beyond the contracted amount, the spot amount in particular.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

My understanding is that the utilization is going to increase. There is some excess capacity, but utilization plan is to fully get to maximum capacity over the next couple of years.

[Greg Reade]

Yes, 100%.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Is there a time frame for that?

[Greg Reade]

There isn't yet, but it's already starting to be used, and so we expect and hope that it fills quickly.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We will now go to Monsieur Simard for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. David, I would like some details on the operation of the Canada Growth Fund.

At the outset, in 2022, the fund was created and entrusted to the Canada Development Investment Corporation, which owned Trans Mountain. If I understand correctly, in 2023, pursuant to Bill C‑47, the fund was completely removed from the books, meaning that it is no longer subject to public scrutiny, if I am not mistaken. That means that neither the PBO nor the Auditor General can comment on it. I also understand that the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources intends to use the fund to finance the Pathways Alliance.

Is that correct?

[Anne David]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Simard.

You are asking about the operating framework of the Canada Growth Fund. As you said, the government created the Canada Growth Fund in 2022 as a Crown corporation and subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. The Canada Growth Fund is still a subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation.

In the budget implementation act of 2023, the government gave PSP Investments, the pension investment fund, permission to manage the funds of the Canada Growth Fund. That means that the Canada Development Investment Corporation holds shares in the fund, but the investments are made by the professionals at PSP Investments.

As to reporting, the Canada Growth Fund reports to Parliament through the Canada Development Investment Corporation. It tables its annual reports and business plans in Parliament through the corporation. One of its auditors is the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

In her testimony, the Minister of Finance stated that certain projects had been funded from the initial $15 billion and that the fund therefore no longer included that initial amount.

Can you provide the committee with a breakdown of the amounts? Was any of that $15 billion used to finance the Trans Mountain project?

[Anne David]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, we can provide the committee with a list of investments by the Canada Growth Fund. I can confirm that no monies from the Canada Growth Fund were invested in the Trans Mountain project.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay.

I would like to know more about the process. The growth fund does not use the same process that is generally used by the finance department to provide financial support for various projects. I understand the controls are different. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Monsieur Simard, we are out of time.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We now go to Mr. Angus. Mr. Angus, go ahead for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I turn it over to Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

First of all, thank you, Charlie.

Before I turn to questioning the Finance officials, I want to start by.... I'm just bewildered by some of the testimony we've heard from the finance minister today. Her claim is that this project is about economic reconciliation. When we had the spokesperson for the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, whose community is directly affected by the pipeline, he called it “economic smallpox”.

We just heard our finance minister brag about how the leader of the Conservative party of Alberta supports the project, when that party just passed a motion, days ago, questioning the most basic climate science about whether carbon pollution even contributes to the crisis that we are in.

We also had the finance minister tell us that this is a pipeline—a pipeline that's going to add 84 megatonnes of emissions—that is going to transition us to green energy. It feels like I'm in Nineteen Eighty-four. What we didn't hear is the reality that this pipeline is going to further cause our global emissions to continue to rise, when we're already hundreds of megatonnes ahead of our domestic emissions. What we didn't hear is that the UN Secretary General already told us that, “Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure,” at this stage of the crisis, is both “moral and economic madness”.

It's that point that I want to ask Finance officials about, because we've yet to hear an answer on how many years would be required for this pipeline to operate. Separate from our children's future, the health risk of spills and the interests of first nations, even if we just look at the financial implications—which, to me, is absurd to begin with—media have been asking Finance officials, “How many years the pipeline would need to operate for?” PBO tells us that the 100 years being put forward is unrealistic. Their view is that a pipeline operates for only 40 years. Can the Finance officials tell us how many years this pipeline needs to operate for it to be commercially viable?

[Greg Reade]

Thank you for the question. I wish I had a direct answer, but let me try to unpack it.