Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The way the process works is that you look at the source and the amount of emissions it's producing, and then you look, after the implementation of technology, at how much it's been reduced.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Great. Again, though, did you actually take into consideration at all that, because Liberal polices have reduced production in the energy sector, perhaps that's due to job loss or that sort of thing?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

First of all, it's based on actuals. It's based on actual production and actual emissions, so that would have nothing to do with it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

But you can't—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I would also say to you that this drive-by sort of language is just not, I would say, appropriate. This government has worked very hard for the energy sector, just as it has for every sector—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I think you worked fairly hard against the energy sector—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, that may be your opinion, Ms. Rempel Garner—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

As far as language goes, I am quoting from—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

—but that is actually not—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

—the commissioner's report, so it's unfortunate.

Look, I think it's really sad that you're coming here saying that you're going to spend over a billion dollars of taxpayer money when people in my province are hurting, and you can't even say how many jobs were created by this. Do you think that's good policy?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The focus of the program at the beginning, just to be clear, was on maintaining jobs. It was actually keeping people employed at a time when this work would simply [Technical difficulty—Editor]. If you go and talk to almost any of the local mayors who had work done in their area, they will tell you that this was an extremely important program to keep people working.

On that basis, yes, it was successful.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're going to have to stop there. That's the end of our five minutes.

We now move over to Ms. Lapointe for her five minutes of questions.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us here today.

Since the late 19th century, the mining industry in my riding of Sudbury, something that I will take every opportunity to talk about and promote, has produced more than eight million tonnes of base metals. Unfortunately, as we now know, early mining methods scarred the land and acidified the lakes. Despite the economic gains of the booming mining industry, we had to take action, and we had to change the way things were being done. Today, as we all know, Sudbury's regreening process has been recognized globally for our successful environmental rehabilitation.

On this topic, I have a few questions for you, Minister. I'll start by asking if you could explain how the ERF program will play a part and fit into our government's plan to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector. The second part of my question is this: Could you also expand on some of the long-term benefits we can expect to see from this program?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Sure. Thank you very much for the question.

When we designed the emissions reduction fund, we saw it as a way not only to protect jobs but also to help the industry continue to reduce methane and other harmful greenhouse gas emissions. We focused on methane because this greenhouse gas is significantly more potent than CO2, for example. It has vastly more warming potential. It's responsible for about 30% of global temperature rise, and it represents 13% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

With that in mind, in terms of targeting methane emissions and limiting its release, that's one of the fastest ways to fight climate change. [Technical difficulty—Editor] obviously the cap is an overall cap on the oil and gas space, but this is one of the key components. Certainly the methane regulations are as well.

Now that the economic crisis in the sector has passed, we're refocusing the program to pull forward emissions to ensure that we are going above and beyond the regulatory requirements for 2025, and to ensure we meet our climate target for 2030.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

In Sudbury, the devastation caused by early mining methods cannot be denied. The measures to address that situation were expensive, demanded a lot of work, and required political will and innovation. However, the evidence was clear and the changes required were unquestionably necessary.

Clearly, there will be serious consequences if Canada does not act urgently and quickly to limit the environmental damages caused by the increase in our GHG emissions.

Could you talk about the consequences of doing nothing in 15 or 25 years and explain to us how the emissions reduction fund will prevent that from happening?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Canada can choose to be a leader in the global energy transition, or we can decide to do nothing and just hope for the best.

In my own province of British Columbia, we have seen the impact of climate change. If we choose to do nothing, the costs will be immense. Just recently, the Bank of Canada published a report showing that the cost to our economy could represent one‑tenth of our GDP, or more. That would be the consequence of doing nothing.

The emissions reduction fund is one of the many tools at our disposal to combat the increase in emissions. Over the years, we anticipate that those projects will eliminate 30 megatonnes of CO2.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

It's clear that many communities and families rely on good-paying jobs from the natural resources sector, certainly in Sudbury and other communities. That includes oil and gas.

Can the minister explain how the ERF and other programs will make sure families and communities are well supported as we make the necessary sustainable transition to a cleaner economy and cleaner jobs?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you. That's a very good question.

The ERF was designed to help maintain jobs and enhance economic competitiveness, all while reducing methane emissions through the sector. The program certainly led to companies seeking more highly skilled workers and firms that specialize in professional engineering, environmental services, construction and technology. It has also resulted in spinoffs of technologies that, as I said, will end up being exported into countries around the world.

In terms of communities, you can go talk to the mayors of some of the communities that I've mentioned—Estevan, Brandon, and Slave Lake—who have all said this was extremely important from an economic perspective in supporting families and workers, and the communities, to ensure that they actually got through this very challenging time in a good way.

This program, as I've said before, is one component among many, and we continue to work towards a sustainable transition. We're going to be working with provinces and territories, industry, academia, indigenous partners and, of course, workers to ensure that we have appropriate feedback and that we're working towards a future that's going to be a good future for everybody, a future where we have a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay, we're out of time on that one.

Minister, I was told that you need to leave right at 4:30 for another meeting, so in the interests of time, we're going to jump right to Mr. Simard, who has a two-and-half-minute intervention.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, as a former minister of the environment, you are surely aware that, in environmental matters, a major principle is “polluter pays”. After all, as a principle, it's quite simple: major polluters are asked to pay for the costs of the negative effects they are having on greenhouse gases. My impression now is that a new trend is emerging in Canada, the principle of “polluter paid”.

In the last two years, I have tried to identify all the economic support that Canada provides to the oil and gas sector. There is simply no way. First of all, you are not clear on what a grant is, which is a problem right off the bat. Some say that it was about $24 billion per year from 2017 to 2020. That is an awful lot of money. Many even say that Canada is the G20 country that supports the oil and gas sector most enthusiastically.

The problem I see with programs like the emissions reduction fund is that it is an attempt at greenwashing. It is an attempt to make the oil and gas sector sexier in the eyes of the environmentalists. But it comes at a terrible cost to us. Moreover, everyone knows that the more support we provide for fossil-fuel energy, the longer we wait for clean energy and new technologies.

So let me repeat the question I asked you earlier: in your opinion, would it be best to shut down the emissions reduction fund?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you for your question.

I agree with you that polluting companies have to pay the bill. That is actually why we put a Canada-wide price on pollution. That is very important. It is an incentive to ensure that companies take steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, we also have to invest in order to accelerate the task of reducing greenhouse gases. We are making those investments in all sectors in Canada. Clearly, we have invested in the automotive industry in order to increase the production of zero-emission vehicles. We have also invested in the steel industry in Ontario and the aluminum industry in Quebec. Now we have to speed up the work in the oil and gas sector. Finally, we also have to protect workers' jobs. They have been in a very difficult position since the start of the COVID‑19 crisis.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Okay, thank you.

For the last round of questions, we're going to have Mr. Angus.

You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back. I've stayed focused on the environment commissioner's report on this fund. He warned that your government needs to stop going “from failure to failure”. How bad has it been? Since Paris, we've had an increase in emissions, and the other G7 countries are doing better than we are. He says that emissions are going up, even though you've designed these individual programs that are supposed to bring them down.

It's because this program was designed as a fossil fuel subsidy. He said this department did not design this program “to ensure credible and sustainable reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”. What I thought was really powerful was that he said that the companies that got the funds said they were going to use them to increase production. Again, if you were using this as another subsidy for the oil sector, you should have been honest about it.

I'll ask you this: If you're telling the world—and your Prime Minister has told the world—that Canada is going to have an emissions cap, and if we're going to be increasing production, how are you going to be credible that you are actually going to meet your greenhouse gas emissions targets? If you're using the methane targets to increase production, how can we trust you on anything else?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I would say to the honourable member that the focus of this program absolutely is on reducing emissions. We have achieved reductions of 4.7 megatonnes, which is equivalent to a million cars on the road.

The action taken in this space has been the same as the action taken across the board with respect to climate. I would call the member's attention to the executive director of the International Energy Agency, who said a couple of weeks ago that “Canada has shown impressive leadership, both at home and abroad, on clean and equitable energy transitions”.

We are making—