Natural Resources Committee on April 6th, 2022

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

My third question is for you, Minister Wilkinson. Could you explain how our government will address energy demand and energy security concerns while reducing emissions in the oil and gas sector? For example, does this include nuclear power? How do you avoid carbon leakage, particularly while global demand for fossil fuels remains high?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Let me start with the nuclear question. Different jurisdictions are going to approach the pathway to net zero differently, and certainly in many jurisdictions nuclear is absolutely part of that. France has just announced that it is building seven new nuclear facilities. Belgium, in response to the energy security crisis in Europe, has announced that it is going to stop the phasing out of nuclear power. Certainly in Canada, Ontario is a major user of nuclear energy. We have been very clear that in a climate crisis, we need to be open to all non-emitting forms of energy, which very much include nuclear. We have invested in the development of small modular reactors, and we will continue to do that.

More broadly on energy security, we need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. There are some people, as I said before, who say the energy crisis is such that we should forget about climate change, and there are other people who say the climate crisis is so significant that we should forget about energy security and not offer support to our friends in Europe. I would say both of those are irresponsible positions. We need to ensure that we're doing what we can to help Europe at a time when they are worried about being able to heat their homes and deliver their groceries, but we need to do so in a manner that fits within the context of our climate plan, in which Canada does its part within the international effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the net-zero goal, and that is exactly what we are doing and what this cap is intended to be part of doing.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Now we'll go over to Madame Michaud.

You have two minutes and 30 seconds.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Guilbeault, last May, the International Energy Agency, or IEA, said that in order to achieve the goal of limiting global warming increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, all countries must commit to no new fossil fuel projects. You often quote the agency yourself.

By approving the Bay du Nord project, don't you seem to be saying one thing and doing its opposite?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question.

I think that what matters from a climate point of view is what is happening in the atmosphere. Is there an increase in emissions or a reduction in emissions?

The approach that Mr. Wilkinson and I have presented today is one that respects jurisdictional boundaries, whereby the federal government cannot impose reductions in natural resource production on the provinces. However, we can certainly address pollution, and we are doing so.

We are on track to meet our methane emissions reduction targets of 40% to 45% by 2025, not 2030. We will be moving towards a 75% reduction, which is still, to my knowledge, the most ambitious methane emissions reduction target by 2030 in the world, and for an oil producing country at that.

This is the approach we have taken both in relation to the IPCC report and the IEA report. As you know, the IEA report predicts that there will still be 25 million barrels of oil per day in use by 2050.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

You talk about the IPCC report. This week, the IPCC just said that emissions from existing and projected fossil fuel infrastructure already exceed the threshold for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Have you read the same thing I have?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I've read it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

In that case, why do you approve of the Bay du Nord project?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Whether the Bay du Nord project is approved or not, the oil and gas sector in Canada generates very significant emissions. That's why we show in the latest plan we submitted how this sector, like all others, must reduce its emissions very significantly by 2030.

So we have imposed a maximum amount of greenhouse gas emissions, which will first cap them and then reduce them, regardless of whether or not a project goes ahead in the next few years.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

The IPCC also says we are exceeding targets with existing infrastructure. You're about to approve a billion barrels of oil over 30 years, and you often say you listen to the science.

By approving this project, how can you say you are listening to science?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The IPCC report predicts many things, including that countries reduce their emissions by 43% by 2030. Our range is 40% to 45%. The IPCC says that all sectors must be in reduction mode. That's exactly what the plan we've presented does.

The IPCC says we need to cap and reduce emissions within three years. You will see Canada's new greenhouse gas emissions inventory in a few weeks. We have great news: we have already flattened the curve, which represents 12% fewer emissions in Canada, or 30 million tonnes, almost half of the emissions of all of Quebec.

Our approach is very pragmatic. As you may know, the IPCC does not prescribe by country, and its findings are for the entire planet. Also, the IPCC does not take into account jurisdictional issues in a country like ours.

The IPCC's recommendations must therefore be retained and adapted to our reality, which is not that of Britain, France or the United States of America.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of time.

Mr. Angus, we'll go over to you for your two and half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, that we are still here and able to get some answers.

Mr. Guilbeault, I really appreciate your being here, because one of the things that I really found confusing was trying to figure out how the Canada Energy Regulator is looking at its scenarios, when I keep hearing you guys talk about, as you say, a cap on emissions and then reducing them.

Under its December 2021 evolving policy scenario, in 2019 we had 4.9 million barrels a day of oil production and in 2050 we will have 4.8 million barrels a day of production. That's a pretty lame target if we're going to have the same production in 2050 as we have today. You've told us that you used the CER as part of your climate plan. Don't you have a better standard than to say we're going to have the same amount of production in 2050 as we have today?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

An experienced parliamentarian like you, Mr. Angus, would know that the energy regulator is an independent body from the government. We don't tell the energy regulator how to do its job, as we don't for any regulator—this one or any other.

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

I get that. I guess as an experienced parliamentarian I know how to read the report.

You tell us that you used the CER. I asked you about Bay du Nord and you said, oh, that's in what we looked at with the Canada Energy Regulator. But, I'm thinking, wait a minute, Bay du Nord was not in the plan in December 2021, so they're thinking of a million barrel a day increase. Is Bay du Nord part of that or is that increased?

I don't see, under the CER's evolving scenarios, based on your plans, how we end up in a situation where we are still producing the same amount of oil in 2050 as we are today, because they have another scenario where it actually goes up to 6.7 million barrels a day depending on markets.

What possible use is your cap if the regulator is looking at all the policies and saying that production basically stays the same?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would be happy to answer your question, but I think Mr. Wilkinson—

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

No, I'd love to hear from you. I have Mr. Wilkinson all the time. I'd love to hear your answer.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I will paraphrase—or try to—what Minister Wilkinson said. He basically asked the energy regulator to do another study looking at what a 1.5°C compliance scenario would look like. I imagine that we will get that new scenario some months from now.

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

That's what I thought, but then you said that you were using them for your big plan that you came up with last week. I'm thinking, okay, so—

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

We had to, Mr. Angus. This was all that we had. I can't base an analysis on scenarios that we haven't seen.

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

You say you're not using them, but then you're using them, but Mr. Wilkinson is going to change it. I'm still confused.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're out of the two and a half minutes here.

As much as I'd love to hear more, we're going to move right on.

We're going to go now to Mr. Melillo for five minutes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the ministers for being here.

I'll direct my questions to Minister Wilkinson, but Minister Guilbeault, if you feel that you're better suited to answer, feel free to step in. I'll allow you two to sort that out.

Minister Wilkinson, earlier, my colleague Mr. Maguire asked about consultation with indigenous communities, specifically around consent. You noted that your department is consulting with indigenous communities, but you didn't answer if you feel that your government needs the consent of indigenous communities before imposing this emissions cap.

Can you tell us if you feel the government needs consent from indigenous communities?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I said, as with all policies and, in particular, policies that affect indigenous communities, we are very cognizant and desirous of significant and strong engagement with indigenous communities, ensuring that we are moving forward—