Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 4th, 2024

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, it is a cap that is actually intended to drive employment in oil and gas-producing areas in this country. There will be thousands and thousands of jobs created because of the initiatives around carbon capture and sequestration and the implementation of methane reductions. It will strengthen the long-term competitiveness of the industry.

The world is moving towards lower carbon, irrespective of what the UCP says, which, on the weekend, decided that climate change is not an issue anymore, somehow. It is something that actually will help us to reduce emissions—no sector gets a pass—but it also is going to strengthen competitiveness and create jobs and economic opportunity in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

In truth, European countries are all backing away, actually, from these policies because they're causing unreliable and too expensive essentials like energy, power and fuel.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

That's actually not true.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It is absolutely true. If you actually watch what the rest of the country is doing....

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

It is not true.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

The truth is that there is no other oil and gas-producing country on earth imposing this policy on itself—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

You just talked about Europe. Europe is actually doubling down on the energy transition because it's both an energy security and a climate issue.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Germany is firing coal back up and Sweden has announced a suspension of all activities towards their goal—

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a point of order, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, I ask you to hold. We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

For the sake of the interpreters, we have two people—the minister and the person who was asking the question, Ms. Stubbs—talking over each other. Aside from allowing the minister to respond or the question to be finished, I'm worried about the iinterpreters.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari. It's a very good point that you raised on a point of order.

Colleagues, speaking over each other does not make the job of our interpreters any easier. It makes it much more difficult.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll address you, sir, in one second.

I would ask you, Ms. Stubbs, to ask the question within your time, and also to allow the minister a reasonable amount of time to answer the question. I hope that addresses your concern and the concerns of this committee member as well.

Mr. Hallan, go ahead on a point of order.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Jowhari about showing respect for our interpreters, but I hope, Chair, that you would see in the last exchange that Ms. Stubbs actually did not get to her question, and it was the minister who interrupted her. I would also ask the minister to please respect the interpreters and let Ms. Stubbs finish before he attempts to answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan, for providing that and agreeing with Mr. Jowhari.

I just will say that Minister Wilkinson was interrupted as well while providing his answer, so it goes several ways. I would ask all colleagues to ask and allow an answer from the minister. I think we can set the ground rules so that we can give them enough time to make sure they can give a fulsome answer to the very important questions that you're asking.

You have about 20 seconds left, so I'm going to turn it back over to you. You can get a quick question in if you like, and we can move forward. Thank you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

The reality is that none of those countries are imposing a job-killing oil and gas emissions cap on themselves because they know it will hurt their people and their economies.

Your collective failures, after nine years on pipelines, have maxed out pipeline capacity. Those combined will cut oil and gas production, jobs, businesses and money from Canada, no matter what you say. That is actually the truth about what is occurring here. You do owe it to Canadians, especially the small and medium-sized producers, operators, indigenous communities and contractors who altogether—including chambers of commerce and other private sector proponents—are saying that your emissions cap will damage Canada catastrophically.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Stubbs, we are at time.

Minister, we are at time. If you have a five or 10-second answer there that you can provide, I can give you 10 seconds. Go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I didn't ask a question. I made a statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead if you'd like to provide a short answer.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

The fact is that our government built a pipeline to tidewater. The Conservatives failed to do so. As a point of fact, the capacity is not yet fully utilized. That's the fact.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, but by next year it will be.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister.

We now go to Ms. Lapointe. Ms. Lapointe, you have six minutes. The floor is yours.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister Wilkinson, you weren't able to provide a fulsome response to the.... Whether they were questions or statements we're not quite sure. Can you please provide that fulsome response now, especially as it relates to what we're seeing some of the European nations doing around this area?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

As I started to say, the oil and gas emissions gap is part of a broad approach to addressing the climate issue in a manner that actually will create jobs and economic opportunity. No sector gets a pass if you actually believe that the science of climate change is real. I think 99.9% of scientists do, even if Danielle Smith's party does not.

At the end of the day, oil and gas represent 31% of emissions in this country. It must begin to go down, just as transportation, electricity and everything else. If you are thoughtful about this—not backward-looking from an economic perspective, but forward-looking from an economic perspective—you look to see how you can actually extract value from that. Decarbonized oil and gas is going to have value in a world that is moving towards low carbon and many new products, like low-carbon hydrogen and a range of other things are going to have markets that will be there for people who actually are thoughtful about moving forward.

At the end of the day, we see this very much in Europe, which is continuing its transition toward a low-carbon future. That is why it is coming to countries like Canada for critical minerals, for hydrogen and for a range of other things. It is important for us to respect the science of climate change and also to look to seize the economic opportunities of the future.