Natural Resources Committee on May 18th, 2022

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I like you a lot, Mr. Wilkinson, but that's not an answer.

It's completely obscene. You brought up aluminum, but the money going to support carbon-neutral aluminum is but a speck of dust compared with what goes to the oil and gas sector.

The very same week that I was getting calls from people telling me that they had to cancel their vacation plans because it was costing them an exorbitant amount in gas just to get to work and back, I found out that a $10‑billion loan guarantee had been approved to support a pipeline and that $2.6 billion had been invested in carbon capture. Both of those investments are solely in support of the oil and gas sector. In these supplementary estimates, $384 million is being allocated. If you add all that up and tell regular folks about it, why, it's enough to send them into apoplectic shock.

Shouldn't there be something preventing multi-billion-dollar oil and gas companies from taking a cut of public funds when everyone has to sacrifice and make an effort, and everyone is being hit hard by high gas prices?

Aren't you thinking about ways to end the financial support that goes to these greedy companies hungry for public money?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you for your question.

I think you're getting some things mixed up. It's very important that we work with our international partners to ensure stability in the oil and gas sector, and bring down oil and gas prices. We also have to focus our efforts on making life affordable for Canadians.

It is nevertheless equally important for the government to work with high-emitting industries to make sure we reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Great. Thank you.

We'll now go right to Mr. Angus for his six minutes of questions.

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

Thank you so much.

It's a pleasure to have you back, Minister. You're always welcome at our committee. We've had many discussions, you and I, about the need to get this right. That's why I asked to be on this committee. Getting it wrong, to me, is not an option.

Professor Kevin Anderson, who prepared the Tyndall Centre report on the climate crisis, testified at our committee. He stated that “for a 50% chance” of meeting the 1.5°C, Canada along with other wealthy oil and gas producers must cut production by “74% by 2030”—that's seven years from now—“with complete phase-out by 2034.”

Based on your conversations with your staff in your department, would you say he's right or is he exaggerating?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I would say that the link is between production and demand. We have to actually reduce demand. Cutting production in Canada is not going to do anything if it can be supplied by other countries. We have to cut demand, which is about deploying zero-emission vehicle technology in Canada and the United States and around the world. It's about reducing the need we have for hydrocarbons.

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

Let me try that again. The IPCC's working group report refers to a “code red for humanity”. It says that the alarm bells are deafening and the evidence is irrefutable. Any further delay will close a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a livable future for all.

What is that “window” that we have to make this happen?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I think the IPCC's been pretty clear that we have to achieve the net zero, the 1.5°C target, by 2050. Canada's plan and Canada's target for 2030 is on track for that. I will tell you that we are on track for that plan. I think what has changed recently with the IPCC is that they now believe that even if you actually are targeting the 1.5°C, or you're targeting net zero, there will be a slight overshoot. The way you get back to 1.5°C is actually through the deployment of carbon removal technology. That's what they said recently.

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

I didn't quite read that, but I'll give you that one.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I can quote it for you.

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

That would be good, but I was reading the budget, and I really don't see a sense of urgency at all. I see a lot of aspirational talk.

There's going to be a new tax credit, and they quote that the Department of Finance will be engaging “with experts to establish” this. On “Expanding the Low Carbon Economy”, it says, “Greater collaboration on climate action between all orders of government”. On “Building Capacity to Support Green Procurement”, it says that Public Services and Procurement Canada “will develop new tools, guidelines and targets”. I mean, this would be a great budget in 2004—2006 was in the Harper years, and they weren't interested in the climate—or budget 2015 or budget 2019.

It's either a code red for humanity or it's business as usual. Why am I seeing aspirational language? I'm not seeing, “Yes, this is a code red and there's a rapidly closing window.” I don't hear a sense of a rapidly closing window from you. I see lots of, “Yes, we're going to have consultations, we're going to meet experts, we're going to talk with people, and we're going to get to this better future.”

Why is it not telling us exactly where those investments are, how soon and what we're going to do to meet this? Either it's an emergency, or it's not true.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Angus, I actually agree with you in the sense of the urgency. I do think we are going to need to learn to do things differently, as a government at the federal level and at other levels of government, in order to try to find ways to do things more quickly than perhaps we've been able to do in the past.

The one caution I would make to you is that we can't ignore our constitutional obligations with respect to consulting with indigenous peoples. We have to respect the constitutional division of powers that exists between federal and provincial governments, which does require consultations, sometimes. I don't disagree with you that we have to do that with urgency.

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

No offence, but when Liberals talk consultations, that tells me this is getting booted down the road. I'm seeing a code red for humanity.

The one thing I do see that you guys moved with urgency on was when CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said it wanted serious investments in carbon capture. I know you guys are telling me how great this is, but this is completely unproven. Four hundred environmentalists and scientists warned against it. In the budget, it's the number one item. It's $7.1 billion. It's there. Everything else is aspirational. You responded when the oil sector said, give us carbon capture and we'll do our job, but the other elements are still aspirational.

When are we going to see that $7.1 billion in hard so that we can say to energy workers and their families that there is a new economy coming, and here it is?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I would say, first of all, the CCUS tax credit was the subject of long consultations before it was actually implemented. The second is the IPCC—

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

I know, absolutely. Fair play. You had 6,800 meetings with big oil, so you certainly had lots of consultations on it.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Let me finish, please. The IPCC has said that there is no pathway to net zero without carbon capture and sequestration, so it is a critical part of any climate plan.

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

But it's your only plan.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, of course, there needs to be a plan with respect to how we're going to ensure workers in communities are going to be supported through the energy transition. We are working on that right now.

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

Okay, that's interesting, because Dr. Tricia Williams gave us a mind-blowing statement the other night when we were talking about this transition. We've heard from the Alberta Federation of Labour. We've heard from the Canadian Labour Congress. We've heard from Iron and Earth, who say their workers don't trust that there is a plan. She said, “Within Canada, we actually know very little thus far about how specific regions and sectors may be affected by energy transitions. In terms of labour and skills, that analysis simply hasn’t been done”.

How do we go back and tell the workers who are coming here that there is a plan for a just transition, when you haven't even drilled down to tell us what this new economy's going to look like and where these new jobs are? I do not see in this budget the money that needs to be put in place to ensure that we have a green energy economy.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I agree with you again, entirely, Mr. Angus. We need to paint a picture of what those jobs of the future are going to look like. In three weeks from now we will be kicking off regional tables that are going to do exactly that.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Folks, we're at 10 minutes before six.

Minister, I hate to let you go. We're not going to get through another full round, but would you be in agreement with one question per side, for no more than 90 seconds?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Would that be about two and a half minutes per side?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll try. If we stick to the two and a half minutes. I know the minister has a hard exit at six o'clock.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

How about three, three, two, two?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

If you want to start, Mr. Maguire, I'll give you two and a half minutes. If you can keep it to two it would give us a bit of room. It always takes time to....