Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 18th, 2024

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes. I'll withdraw that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Falk.

I'm going to go to Mr. Angus, who has the floor.

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

Thank you.

I had wanted to know because I was concerned that we were going into another filibuster, and I'm really not interested in filibusters. If there's no filibuster, then I'm ready to vote. If there's going to be a filibuster, I will get the floor and push to adjourn debate.

However, I think the minister should come. It's standard practice for supplementary estimates (B); this is what we have done, so I think we should bring the minister and carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Just one second; I want to get my earpiece on.

Monsieur Simard, go ahead. You have the floor now.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I was the next speaker. I agree with Mr. Angus. Let's vote on it and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

I'm going to take one last look. It doesn't look like we have any other speakers on the motion brought forward by Ms. Dabrusin.

It looks like we have unanimous consent for that.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'll go to Monsieur Simard. You have the floor, sir.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm going to take this opportunity to move a motion that I wanted to move last Monday. I'll read it quickly and explain the rationale.

That, given the Parliamentary Budget Officer's statements in the Transmountain Pipeline System Report 2024 released on November 8, 2024, the Committee expresses concern about the financial uncertainty regarding the government's ability to sell the Transmountain Pipeline System at a price that avoids a net loss to taxpayers and asks the Chair to report to the House as soon as possible.

Let me explain, Mr. Chair. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came to talk about his 2022 report. At the time, the government had allocated $21.4 billion for the pipeline. That has now risen to $34 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's testimony was unequivocal. The federal government is heading for a loss. The unrecoverable amount is nearly $4 billion. As parliamentarians, I think it is our duty to discuss this issue. I would like it to be reported to the House.

My colleague, Ms. Dabrusin, whom I sincerely respect, told the Parliamentary Budget Officer that it is not his job to share political considerations. I completely agree with her. It is, in fact, my job to share political considerations. The Canadian government, and therefore indirectly the Quebec government, is likely to lose $4 billion. In addition, with the Trans Mountain pipeline in operation, we don't know if we'll be able to meet our GHG reduction targets. I sincerely believe that Parliament has a duty to ask itself this question and try to shed light on the situation. How can we say this infrastructure will be profitable over a 40-year period when we know very well that new technologies are emerging to solve our energy problem and the climate change crisis? I think we have sufficient justification to bring this matter to the House.

At that point, it will be up to each individual and their conscience to give Canadians a status update on the situation. I realize that my Conservative friends may not see things the same way I do, but it's up to them to present their vision. Similarly, it will be up to the government to defend what I believe is a flawed decision to buy a pipeline and assume the risk for the oil sector, when we know full well that this economic sector is raking in record profits.

For all these reasons, I think we need to debate this in the House. The Parliamentary Budget Officer presented his report to the House. It would be entirely appropriate for us to have this discussion in the public eye in the proper forum, which is the House of Commons.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

Now I will go to Mr. Angus, who's next on our speaking order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Normally, I believe we should finish a study and present all the reports at the same time. That's a normal practice of the committee. However, I've been very concerned—and people are aware I've been very concerned—about the decision around TMX, including the cost and, of course, the implications it has for the government's proposed climate agenda, which I think crosses itself out.

As much as we are still working through the TMX report, it has produced enough evidence that is of concern and that the public will want to be aware of, so I support my colleague. I think it's a pretty straightforward motion, so I'm ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Now I go to Mr. Jowhari. Mr. Jowhari, you have the floor.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank our colleague for bringing the motion forward.

We seem to have just concluded this study, and throughout this study we spent a lot of time trying to get an understanding of different perspectives: From the challenges that we had in being able to get this project done—and I'm glad the project is done—to the length of time it took, the changing costs and COVID, we heard a lot. We also heard different perspectives, and I believe it is only fair that all those testimonies and perspectives are put into a draft report that we could look at.

I'm a “the glass is half full” guy, and when I sit back and look at it from that lens, I say, “Yes, there were challenges and circumstances that we could not foresee, such as COVID, and, probably, we could have done a better job,” but I leave that to the conclusion that—hopefully—we'll draw, and recommendations in the report that will be drafted, hopefully very soon. We could have foreseen some of these had we done a bit more due diligence, but the bottom line is there are elements that we really need to consider. I'm also looking forward to the lessons learned in that report.

When it came to economic benefits, we heard a lot. We heard a lot about the economic benefit that it has for Alberta and for the GDP, and also the point of view from PBO. The fact is that we are now pivoting on a PBO report, which suggests that we're going to lose money if we sell now. It used a set of parameters such as the tolls, utilization and the rate that was used, and those were assumptions. The scope of the report did not include any cost analysis; it just looked at a present value of the sale or of the project, given certain criteria. At no point, I believe, did the PBO come back and say that, “Do you know what? The Government of Canada and Canadians are not going to benefit from this, even when we divest ourselves of it.”

We looked at it. We looked at the sensitivity analysis that the PBO did, and it was at around 2.5%, both for the total rate that they used as well as the utilization. We clearly saw that on the upside of contracts, this could easily add another $4 billion or $5 billion, which puts this project in a very positive position, even though there were challenges and some costs that were incurred .

I think that to jump to a conclusion and say, “Well, the PBO came here and said that we're not going to make any money; let's go report it to the House” also undermines the great work that this committee did, the preparation that so many of our team members did, the work that the analysts are going to do regardless—coming in, looking at and presenting the facts, citing the support for it, coming up with recommendations—and then our getting together, reviewing the recommendations and coming up with lessons learned.

Also, there's an opportunity to really look at all aspects of this. I think that jumping the gun, going to the House and saying, “Well, do you know what? Let's acknowledge it” is also unfair to the committee and to the analysts. They've been so diligently listening, collecting and translating this information.

I'd like to present all those facts. There's a spectrum of points of view. We heard from a group of stakeholders: Some were supportive and some had concerns.

Those need to be properly collected and properly presented. I believe the analysts will do an amazing job. I've been around for nine years now. I've worked with some of the analysts who are sitting around the table. I haven't seen anything but great work from them. I'm looking forward to the report.

Jumping to conclusions and ignoring all those facts makes me very uncomfortable. We could say that what we've heard is good enough: Let's jump to the conclusion. Let's forgo the process that we have developed, that we have agreed on and that has worked in the past. For my part, I don't think that's the right path to go on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

Go ahead, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I want to clarify my intentions.

I have the utmost respect for the analysts, and their work is very valuable to me. I take it seriously. I read the documents they produce very carefully.

I wouldn't want anyone to suggest that the motion I'm tabling shows a lack of confidence in the analysts, for whom I have the utmost respect. I just wanted to make that clear, with sincere good will toward my colleague and above all, toward the analysts, for whom I have the utmost respect.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard, for your point of order and for the clarity. It was not a point of order, but through translation I got what you were asking for and the clarity of your intent. Thank you.

We will now go to the next speaker.

Mr. Patzer, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I too would like to offer my support for the motion. I do think it is fair for this committee to express its concern with the fact that the government is set to take a loss on the TMX pipeline, as we heard clearly from the PBO. We have also heard from other witnesses and stakeholders that the valuation of the pipeline will also be dependent on such things as policy that the government puts forward and how things like an emissions cap will be problematic for somebody looking to buy the pipeline. Current and existing regulations, such as the Impact Assessment Act, the carbon tax and the Liberal fuel regulations, are all, among many other things, detrimental to any company that would be looking to purchase this pipeline.

I think it's fair for this committee to express its concern to the House. I support this motion.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Now I'll go to Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, you have the floor.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would also like to add my voice to supporting this motion and what Monsieur Simard is arguing in terms of the importance for us to all unite about this concern that the independent, non-partisan, non-political Parliamentary Budget Officer has expressed.

I would say this to my colleague Mr. Jowhari: You made a comment about wanting to learn from this about the future, but my colleague Jeremy Patzer has just outlined the combination of the carbon tax; various anti-development policies; Bill C-69, when Conservatives warned about all of the things the Supreme Court said and which has still not been sufficiently remedied, including the job-killing oil and gas cap; unilateral offshore drilling bans; and a tanker ban that the federal government is being sued over by the most locally impacted indigenous community, the Lax Kw'alaams.

All of these things together mean that there will not be more pipelines proposed by the private sector in this country because, unfortunately, after nine years, the consequences of the Liberals' policy agenda are an absolute collapse in confidence in Canada as a place where the private sector can build big infrastructure and major projects, where they can create jobs and powerful paycheques and send all this revenue into multiple levels of government to provide the programs and services that all Canadians in every part of this country value.

It absolutely does behoove us, I think, to act on the concerns and to show as a committee that we also share concerns about taxpayers being made whole and being paid back for the tax dollars spent on a pipeline that never had to happen and never should have happened if the federal government had just given the private sector proponent the legal and political certainty it needed to go ahead and build the Trans Mountain expansion that their own government approved.

They keep saying it's a pipeline built for Alberta, but they approved it in the national interest. That's what it's about. Then, of course, it dithered and delayed and didn't actually take the action that the federal government had, which could have allowed the private sector to go ahead and build it on their dime, on schedule. It would be fully functional.

Here we are. It's half a decade late. The cost increase to build it has risen 360% since the original estimations. The PBO and various witnesses have clearly demonstrated that there remains uncertainty for the kinds of things that purchasers would need to know about, such as the tolls, which won't be set until 2025.

Also, with respect to colleagues, yes, we did this study on the Trans Mountain expansion, but they may recall that we actually didn't even have all of the witnesses here who are proponents, who are groups interested in potentially purchasing the pipeline. It's really not true that we did a comprehensive thorough analysis at that committee. It's just not the case.

None of this had to happen or go this way, but that is the mess the Liberals have made. They can lie in it and answer to their own voters about the collision in the things that they say they care about. I'm sure Monsieur Simard and Mr. Angus will have more to say about that.

These are all the reasons that Conservatives absolutely support Monsieur Simard's motion and believe this has to happen. I think it would be shocking that there's anybody elected and sitting around this table who doesn't think that we should take very seriously what the independent non-partisan, non-political budget watchdog has said, since it is the Liberal government that has put taxpayers in this position and doesn't seem to have been able to figure it out or to control the cost in the Crown corporation that it runs and continues to put money into. Therefore, we do have to have—

Oh, I'm sorry for tapping the microphone if that had an impact on the translators.

This makes the point that we should support our concerns being expressed and we should heed the words of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That's at least a core responsibility that we owe every single Canadian, since the federal government forced them to be owners of major energy infrastructure whether those Canadians liked it or not.

Again, Conservatives believe in expanding Canadian energy, in ensuring there is crucial energy infrastructure built by the private sector in all directions, ensuring that we expand Canadian energy products and technology to our allies and around the world to help lower emissions globally and to help energy security domestically in Canada, and also energy security for our allies, who clearly, in the various conflicts going around the world, need Canada more than ever and keep asking for Canada, except the Prime Minister keeps turning away.

For all those reasons, we do support Mr. Simard's motion out of our concern that taxpayers deserve these answers too.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

We'll now go to Ms. Dabrusin.

Ms. Dabrusin, the floor is yours.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

It's an interesting conversation as it's unfolding.

I'll start by saying that I agree largely with the point that was raised by Mr. Jowhari, which is that we haven't completed the study that we had engaged in here. It seems like such a strange thing for us to be suggesting that it would be a good idea to put forward one report—basically, just one piece of the evidence that came in in our study and put that into the House to debate—when we've heard so much else over the course of this study. It would undermine, I think, the value of all of those other witnesses and all of the other pieces of information that we got.

The PBO officer was also very clear that he has a very limited mandate as to what he looks at and what he doesn't look at, so if we sent this to the House of Commons immediately, without the rest of the context from the study, then we're actually missing a lot of the other important pieces that were put before us by witnesses.

We heard from witnesses, in detail, about things like some of the extra complications about this project. We heard about, obviously, the impact of the pandemic, but also that apparently there were archaeological findings along the way that required attention, and that added to costs. There was an atmospheric river that also had an impact on the construction of it. It was also mentioned that there were many other projects happening at the same time, so there were challenges when it comes to labour and supply of the items required. There were issues about the challenges of geography.

All of those kinds of pieces were being brought forward to us by witnesses. Not all of that's reflected in the PBO report, so we would just be sending a report to the House of Commons without all of that extra context. Why bother having all the witnesses come if we're just going to take the PBO report and send it back? I think that the value in doing a study and bringing to bear everything that we have to say and everything that we have heard brings a value to it, and that's why we do the study.

From my sense, this isn't just about putting forward the PBO report. If we actually care for a thorough study about the TMX pipeline—and we did care so much about having a full study on the TMX pipeline that we all agreed to do the study and we all called witnesses and asked those important questions of witnesses—then I think we should be also making sure that the voices of those witnesses, the reports from those witnesses, their evidence and our findings and the analysis and the recommendations that would come from the work of the analysts should all go together with it. It doesn't make sense to me to take one piece. If we were going to do that, we could have brought any report or any witness's statement and sent that to the House of Commons separately, without all the other contacts, but it's missing things.

I was particularly fascinated by the part about how union labour had not been involved by the private sector beforehand. To me, that's a huge change, actually, and impacts workers, and as Ms. Stubbs said, it would potentially impact costs, but these are the kinds of things about supporting union labour in working on these things, and I hadn't realised that, actually. I don't think that that would be really reflected in the PBO report and analysis either. If you send the report without that kind of context, you're missing some of the factors and the pieces that would be going into the whole piece.

We also had economists who came forward and provided lots of context as to what they saw as the value of the TMX pipeline. Their opinions differed, by the way; they didn't all agree. That kind of context would be missing in bringing that forward.

That's also something important for people to talk about. I think, as Monsieur Simard recognized when he was speaking, the PBO was talking about how he was working within very strict parameters. I don't know why we would choose to keep ourselves within those strict parameters when we refer this to the House of Commons. We'd be in a better place if we put the whole study together and then had all of this go forward. We can debate all of the pluses and minuses regarding the costs and how this all came to be. That is, I think, one important part.

I also want to respond to what we heard from Mrs. Stubbs.

She said that the Conservatives believe in Canada's energy products and exports. The Liberal government does too. In fact, we have been very much supporting the development of energy in Canada. The offshore wind bill we passed was the whole of Bill C-49. All of that debate on Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and offshore wind was about an entire energy industry right here in our country. It's new and important, and it will have a very big impact on Atlantic Canada. Frankly, the Conservatives were not supporting us in moving forward with that bill.

I want to very much counter the idea that the current Liberal government isn't supporting energy. We put forward that bill and worked with the Atlantic provinces to make sure it moved forward. That's a very important thing we did.

If you want to talk about our support for energy products, look at nuclear power. That is an important piece we've been moving forward.

Do you know what? I want to talk about that. It's easy to chirp back at me when I'm talking about these things, except for—

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

I'm sorry. There is an issue of relevancy.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I was responding to what Mrs. Stubbs—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, I'm asking you to hold.