Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Lapointe, I have another point of order from Mr. Lake.

Mr. Lake, go ahead on the point of order.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Again, just to be clear, the witnesses have been heard from. That testimony is all public, and this is clearly a delay tactic on behalf of the government.

We're in a public meeting right now. Anybody watching this meeting—and I'm sure we will make sure that more people see it—will see that there is a public discussion wherein the Liberal members are very clearly and repeatedly trying to delay a debate about this important issue in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Lake, with regard to your point of order, this was addressed earlier, and you are now engaging in debate.

I do actually have you on the list after Ms. Lapointe, so you can make the same points that you're making on this point of order when you have the opportunity to debate.

I would like to let you know that, yes, this was a public meeting. This information has been provided to, or is accessible by, the members of the public, but the final report and recommendations have not been approved by this committee at this point. We have not gone through that process. Just from a procedural understanding of where we are, that's where we're at.

Thank you for your point of clarification, I will say, and I look forward to your debate when you're up next.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Lapointe, I'm going to go back to you. Go ahead.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you for providing that clarification, Mr. Chair.

Again, I'm going to repeat that this is about ensuring that the witnesses we brought forward who had expertise on a number of fronts be included and that the report be before us when we go to the House.

Some of the witnesses spoke to us about the economic, safety and indigenous community impacts as well. I would suggest that when we, as a committee, all agreed to take on this study, what we wanted was to hold the government to account. The report will provide that more complete and thorough review with all of the witnesses' testimony, as well as the recommendations that may ensue from that report.

The final point that I will make—and I know that my colleague MP Dabrusin made it, but I think it's important because I did start by saying that process is important—is that every report this committee has made since the beginning of this session required the Government of Canada to table the reports. It is the accepted process that has been adopted by this committee and other committees. The reports that we've seen where this occurred include the report on the climate crisis in Canada's energy sector. There are a number of reports that we know of, such as the report on the fair and equitable energy transformation, and there are many others.

I would conclude by saying that in terms of process, I think it is important that we follow that due process. In terms of accountability and in terms of ensuring a good and complete debate, I think it is important that we do that with the full range of witnesses and testimony that we heard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

I am going to go to the next speaker on our list, and that is Monsieur Simard on the amendment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll be frank: I'm prepared to vote immediately, since Ms. Lapointe's arguments were already raised during the debate on Mr. Jowhari's amendment. I think that all of my colleagues were quite clear in that regard. We voted.

I understand that my Liberal colleagues are using the excuse that they'd like to have the full study before there's a debate in the House. However everyone here heard what the witnesses had to say. If we're doing our jobs properly, we know the facts and the ins and outs of pipeline purchase.

I think, then, that we can easily hold the debate in the House. I'm going to repeat myself yet again: in my opinion, the amendment is repetitive. We can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can hold a debate in the House and wait until later to finalize the committee's report, and we'll be no worse off. In my opinion, we can do both, and I invite my Liberal colleagues to, perhaps, have a little more courage and to face up to this issue, which would rebound in the House.

I'm ready to proceed immediately with the vote on my colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

We do have another speaker on the list. Then we'll try to get to a vote.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I am very concerned by what I think is a clear pattern from my Liberal colleagues to filibuster this motion and keep us from presenting to Parliament the findings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I have a number of concerns. It was one of the reasons I pushed for a study of TMX. I think it speaks to the underlying falsehood of the Prime Minister's promise to Canadians and the Prime Minister's promise to the world.

We remember the Prime Minister at COP26 saying that Canada was back and that we were going to be an environmental leader. He had no intention—ever—of following through on that. We had the environment commissioner, Mr. DeMarco, come before our committee and say that Canada has missed every single target it has established under this Prime Minister. We are now the outlier of the G7. Canada is leading the world in increased oil production while they tell us that they are going to address increasing emissions.

Mr. Guilbeault regularly makes repeated falsehoods that we are bending the curve on emissions. Well, we are somewhat bending a very tiny bit of a curve, except when it comes to the oil sector, and this is where the government has decided to invest their money. It's been two years since they promised action on the clean energy file. Through that time, for Cenovus and Imperial, for anything they needed in terms of money for the bogus carbon capture schemes, government was there. The $34-billion TMX pipeline, which had no financial case, they were there for. Under this Prime Minister, we have seen oil production increase 41% over what happened under Stephen Harper.

Why does that matter? It matters because what we know from the IPCC is that every increase in carbon at this point is putting us closer and closer to a dangerous red line from which we don't return. I've found in this Parliament that climate denialism is deeply embedded. It's certainly deeply embedded in my colleagues in the Conservative Party, but it's much more concerning to have nice climate denialism—the climate denialism of the Liberals, who tell us, yes, we can massively increase unrefined bitumen exports around the world, but we won't count it as part of our inventory. It's as though somehow the world won't notice the increase, with Cenovus going from 800,000 to 950,000 barrels of unrefined bitumen a day, if they burn that in the United States or Malaysia or China. It won't affect the atmosphere that Imperial Oil production levels had a 3% increase just this past February. They are now at the highest production levels ever.

The Prime Minister went to COP. He made promises. He made promises of an emissions cap. It's a ridiculous suggestion, if you're going to massively increase production, to then say you're going to put an emissions cap in place. It's part of what the Liberal government says: “Don't worry. Trust us. We're going to get behind the wheel and drive and drink our way to sobriety. You can trust that we'll be safe on the highway.” This is not environmental stewardship.

I have a number of concerns about the PBO report. I think it was overly optimistic. I think he ignored a number of key factors, such as changing the net present value to present value, which basically wiped out the massive debt. Canadians want to know who's going to pay to get us whole again after the $34 billion.

We had the Deputy Prime Minister come and tell our committee that, yes, all that $34 billion would paid back, and more. She was going to make money off it. That was either an open falsehood or she hadn't looked at the numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though I believe he has overly optimistic scenarios, says that's impossible and that we are going to lose money.

The issue before us is that Mr. Simard has moved a motion that we should present the PBO's report to Parliament. That's reasonable. Normally, I would suggest that it's reasonable to do it within a larger study, and I get that, but the TMX is not a normal study. The TMX was not a normal investment. The TMX investment was this Prime Minister going all in on betting on oil infrastructure when the International Energy Agency was saying not to do this and when the IPCC was saying not to invest in this kind of infrastructure.

This is the Prime Minister's legacy project, a legacy that will impact Canadians for generations to come, so it deserves to be brought to Parliament as well as undergo a full study with all the witnesses. They don't preclude one another and they don't erase one another, but what is being erased here is our ability to get our reports done because the Liberals are filibustering. They're filibustering because they don't want the issue of TMX to be brought to the House.

I reject this attempt to continue to obstruct this effort on our committee's part to bring the PBO report to Parliament so that parliamentarians can discuss it. I reject the filibustering and I reject the falsehoods of a Prime Minister who promised to be an environmental leader while Canada is now the laggard of the G7 and our planet burns.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'm going to go to Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Actually, I was originally just going to let it go to a vote, but I feel like there are a few things I have to respond to in that one.

Do you know what? It might be really hard to see from the inside of a Maserati as we drive down that highway, but things are changing in Canada. In fact...

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

I see what you did there. That was good.

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

I appreciate that.

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

Hold my drink.

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

We are actually seeing our emissions going down as a country. The most recent report from the Canadian Climate Institute supports that, but our own inventory report to the IPCC said the same thing.

Under the previous Conservative government, our emissions were going up. There was no tracking down. Now they are bending down, and we are continuing to do the heavy lifting to make that happen. Our emissions are actually lower than they have been in 25 years, and that's a huge move forward.

I could respond to a whole bunch of things that the member opposite, Mr. Angus, just said, but I don't want us to take too much more time before we get to this vote, except just to say that he was incorrect about the emissions—they are going down—and to say that there is, in fact, a lot of work that's happening, including the cap on emissions from oil and gas and including the work that we've done with carbon pricing, which his leader has chosen to step away from. That was an interesting choice, but again, maybe it's because it has become expensive for him with his choice of vehicle.

On that point, I say let's go to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will go to a vote soon, but we have three more speakers. I'm going to go to Mr. Simard, Mrs. Gray and Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I just want to come back to what my colleague Mr. Angus said earlier. Because I don't drive a Maserati but rather a Hyundai, which isn't quite as sexy, I clearly understand and share Mr. Angus's analysis.

The PBO came to tell us not only that a significant amount of money will never be recovered and that market conditions will make any attempt by the government to recover a portion of its investment extremely difficult, but also that as a consequence, we'll be beholden to oil and gas for 40 years.

I'd also like to quickly and simply remind you of the figures provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. They told us that, if we want to keep the rise in average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to reduce our oil consumption by 62%, depending on new technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration. Otherwise, the IPCC says that we need to reduce our oil consumption by 70%, which I don't think is consistent with the use of a pipeline over a 40‑year period.

For all those reasons, I believe we must hold that debate in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I will now go to Mrs. Gray.

Mrs. Gray, you have the floor.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the original motion, this is an important motion, and it's good that this is brought forward. The statements from the Parliamentary Budget Officer were very revealing and really need to be discussed in the House. The amendments that have been brought forth by the Liberals are part of a continual trend of not wanting to address the serious issues and to push things under the rug. They're filibustering rather than voting for a good motion that we should be able to move forward with very quickly. Bringing forth these ongoing amendments without just looking at the original motion....

One thing with the original motion that is solid is that it's right to the point and is something that all parties will be able to speak to carefully and address. It's unfortunate that the Liberals keep bringing forth these amendments in order to shut down the opportunity to move forward with this good motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Gray.

I'll now go to Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Patzer, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to add a few thoughts to this as well.

I think it's quite clear, and I think Charlie was correct, that the government is clearly trying to filibuster. They don't want to have their failure on the Trans Mountain pipeline brought up in the House of Commons. That's why they're trying to kick this down the road as far as they possibly can and just hope that maybe if something happens—I don't know; maybe an election—it would prevent it from happening, or maybe they want to prorogue Parliament. Maybe that would be something that would happen as well. Who knows?

We know that their clearly stated objective is to delay this motion as long as they possibly can. My hope is that we can get to the point of passing the original motion, as it was written, or as we have it before us, without any further amendment.

When you look at the cost that's tied on to this, $34 billion, the PBO was pretty clear.... It's not the first time that a committee has requested a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report to be concurred in prior to a committee study being finished. We see this every now and then from different committees.

This report is a pretty substantive report. Any time you're talking about $34 billion, that's enough of a report in and of itself. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made the case that the government stands to take a loss, that should be a five-alarm fire for everybody, regardless of their feelings.

I absolutely think that we should be having a debate as soon as we can get one on the government's handling of the pipeline and the finances of it, as per the PBO report, and I'd like to see that happen tomorrow if we could. I know that's not going to happen, but that's the kind of urgency that we should see with this issue.

I would think the government would want to get up and speak to it as well, as soon as possible, and not want to wait 120 days. I think for them it would be urgent to try to build confidence with Canadians. I think the fact that they want to kick it down the road shows just how scared they are to have that debate. They know that they can't defend their record on it because they know that it's been an absolute failure, even just on the financial side, let alone other issues here.

I'm ready to vote and I hope we can pass the original motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Patzer, if you're ready, I think colleagues on committee might be ready as well.

I'm looking for any last hands and taking one last glance around the horseshoe here and online.

There's nothing. Okay, let's vote, Mr. Clerk.

Please start the roll call.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

It's on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, it's on the amendment of Ms. Lapointe. Thank you for that, Mr. Aboultaif.

The vote is on the amendment that Miss Lapointe brought forward.

Are we all clear on what we're voting on? Okay.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now back on the main motion that was previously amended.

I don't have anybody on the speaking order at this point, but I'm going to take a glance across the room. Once I look across the room, I will eventually look online.

Ms. Dabrusin, I'll recognize you. I'm looking at folks online as well.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.