Evidence of meeting #16 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cap.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Gitane De Silva  Chief Executive Officer, Canada Energy Regulator
Jean-Denis Charlebois  Chief Economist, Canada Energy Regulator
Glenn Hargrove  Assistant Deputy Minister, Fuels Sector, Department of Natural Resources

April 6th, 2022 / 4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Guilbeault, thank you for joining us today.

The committee is meeting today to talk about capping greenhouse gas emissions, or GHG emissions. Of course, capping emissions doesn't mean increasing them.

Mr. Guilbeault, first of all, I want to know why you approved the Bay du Nord development project.

Do you think that it will help to reduce GHG emissions?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I want to clarify that there hasn't been any formal announcement on the Bay du Nord project. If you look at the emissions reduction plan tabled last week, you'll see that it draws on a number of sources of information, including the Canada Energy Regulator. This regulator operates independently of the government and projects an increase in oil production in Canada by 2030.

We've incorporated these things into the reduction plan. Despite this increase in production, we've been saying all along that we'll tackle emissions. Minister Wilkinson spoke, for example, about reducing methane emissions, capping greenhouse gas emissions and using carbon pricing.

Despite the increase in production, we showed very convincingly, in the opinion of countless stakeholders across the country, how we could meet the 2030 goals.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

You have often said that Équiterre is one of these stakeholders.

I'll quickly read you a quote: “If the federal government is serious about its commitment to fight climate change, it must reject this project.”

This evening, will the ecologists still consider you a serious player?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Don't ask me, ask them.

That said, I want to point out that they praised the plan as the most robust, transparent and convincing plan in terms of Canada's ability to achieve these goals.

The plan doesn't depend on Canada deciding to help Europe and increase production by 300,000 barrels. We've already factored this into the analysis for the plan.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Guilbeault, you're spouting Conservative rhetoric.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

No, that isn't true at all.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

In my opinion, the use of the crisis in Russia to justify the intentions of oil companies constitutes Conservative rhetoric.

We know that Bay du Nord accounts for about one billion barrels of oil.

Do you know what one billion barrels of oil produces in megatonnes of greenhouse gases?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I don't know that by heart.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Well, I'll tell you. It amounts to 430 megatonnes, which is equivalent to 60% of the government's total emissions in 2019. That can't be hidden away. We can talk about carbon capture and sequestration strategies, but I wonder where the 430 megatonnes will go.

Do you have any idea?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

You're including all greenhouse gas emissions, and not just the emissions from oil extraction in this project, which amount to 0.04% of Canada's emissions.

As you know, the calculation method used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, doesn't work that way for greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions are calculated—

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Let's talk about this. You're telling me that—

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Let me respond.

Regardless of whether we agree with the IPCC, according to its methodology, emissions are calculated where they take place. They can be calculated in the transportation sector, in the industrial sector, and so on.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

That's fine.

We're on the same page.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Okay.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Either we agree or we disagree with the IPCC.

When the IPCC says that increased fossil production stands in the way of capping and reducing emissions, do you still agree with the IPCC?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I think we need to take the time to read the IPCC report carefully. According to this report, we can no longer have oil production that is not offset or sequestered. In English, we use the term “unabated”. To my knowledge, there is no real French translation for this expression.

According to the IPCC, in order to meet the 1.5‑degree limit, countries need to reduce their emissions by 43% by 2030. Our goal is to reduce our emissions by 40% to 45%.

The IPCC says that in 2050, there will still be 35 million barrels of oil per day being used in the world, but it will have to be very low emission oil. All emissions will have to be offset. That is exactly what we are doing.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

I understand.

I'll close by saying that tabling an emissions reduction plan and then a few days later approving an initiative like the Bay du Nord development, in my opinion, is very contradictory.

I will let my colleague Ms. Pauzé continue the discussion.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Thank you for being with us today, Mr. Guilbeault.

We're going to talk about the recent statement by Mr. Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, or UN. I will quote him. He said, “Investing in new fossil fuel production and power plants is moral and economic madness.”

Did he really say that? Do we agree on that?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I don't have the press release in front of me, but I think this is a pretty accurate representation of his words.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

I have another excerpt from his statement.

He said, “Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals, but the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.”

Have we read the same thing?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I think that sounds like what he said.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Do you agree with the UN Secretary General when he says that the really dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing fossil fuel production?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

In fact, I have often been called a radical person, both as an environmentalist and as a politician. Frankly, I'm not sure. I may be an expert on the issue of radicalism, but maybe I'm not. I don't know.

What I can say, and you probably read it as I did in the IPCC report, is that the IPCC is not saying that there will be no more oil in 2050. You know that.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

We agree on that, but he says...

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

He says there will be 36 million barrels of oil a day, but that oil will have to be offset or sequestered.