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.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Of course you have to have mitigation measures, among other things. It's almost called green oil.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
By my standards, there is no such thing.
I will continue the discussion on the Bay du Nord oil project.
I will repeat a statement I made on this subject: “This is the first time [in Canada] that a well is going to be drilled at this depth. [...] In the event of a spill, it will take 18 to 36 days to bring in the equipment to plug the leak. [...] We're talking about millions of litres in the Atlantic.”
Are you comfortable taking that risk?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
As you know, the project was reviewed by what was then called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for four years.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
The project was reviewed under the old act, but it's important to keep in mind that since we came to power in 2015, the agency has started to incorporate a lot more on local risks and, in particular, the issue of climate change, even for projects that were assessed under the old regime.
We proposed to put in place an environmental assessment regime that allowed the process to be depoliticized, whereas under the Conservatives the whole process was political, including environmental assessment.
The agency made a recommendation last December. After studying this project for four years, it came to the conclusion that there were no significant environmental impacts. Of course, there is a series of conditions, more than 130, which are legally binding conditions. They are not wishful thinking, and they are not a wish list. These are conditions that the company must comply with or risk not being able to operate its project, if it is in breach of the law.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
We'll go now right to Mr. Angus.
Go ahead for your first six minutes.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Wilkinson, who is like an old hand at our committee. It's nice having you back.
Mr. Guilbeault, this is your first time here. Welcome. I will talk to you, Mr. Guilbeault, because we have talked with Mr. Wilkinson a fair number of times. We hope we'll talk to him a lot more in the coming study. The national news is reporting this afternoon that your government is approving Bay du Nord?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
It is true that the national news is reporting that, yes.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
The company said it was between 300 million barrels and a billion.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Last week you approved 300,000 barrels a day to help Europe. Bay du Nord would be another 200,000 barrels a day. That's half a million barrels a day. I didn't read that in your climate plan. Where did this decision to start approving new projects like Bay du Nord come from?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Actually if you had read the climate plan attentively—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
—you would have seen that the plan rests on a number of different data sources, including the last study from the Canada Energy Regulator, which forecasts an increase in production in Canada between now and—
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
So you are on side.... The Canada Energy Regulator is saying that we're going to get a million barrels a day. So that's what you're agreeing with—that that's where we're going?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
The question is not whether or not we agree or disagree with the Canada Energy Regulator. The question is, did we use the energy regulator as one of the data sources to prepare our emission reduction plan, and the answer to that question is yes.
Despite those growths in production, our plan clearly shows, to the satisfaction of a number of experts, and someone you may know, Andrew Weaver, IPCC scientist—
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
No, actually, I don't know him, but he did come here.
Anyway, what I'm interested in is the fact that under your plan of this billion-dollar project that may or may not be approved, in-between your plan and this big announcement that may be happening, the IPCC released their report this week. Did you read that report?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I have the read the report, as I've read every single report since 1990.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm glad, because they say it's now or never: that we're at the point of catastrophic, irreversible climate change. Would you agree with that assessment?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I would agree with many things that the IPCC said this week, including the fact that countries need to present plans where they show emission reductions in every sector of their economy—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
That emissions have to peak and reduce and that's exactly what's happening—