Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 1st, 2022

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes. As I said, the funds provided in the supplementary estimates (B), 2022‑2023 are there to honour the government's commitment towards reconciliation with indigenous groups following Crown consultations on the project.

The government must undertake Crown consultations for all projects, not only those in which it invests. This is something that is perfectly normal.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

When we launch a project as huge as Trans Mountain, it goes without saying that we have to come to an understanding with the communities that are impacted. You could say that this is part of the risk involved.

GNL Québec comes to mind. If that company had gone through with its project, it would have been the one to compensate people impacted by its project, not the government. I don't understand why, in the case of Trans Mountain, the government is the one that has to compensate indigenous communities. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Do you at least agree with me in saying that this is once again a case of using government funds to bring the Trans Mountain project to fruition?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I said, it is perfectly normal for the government to undertake initiatives with indigenous groups to further reconciliation. That is not the same things as paying out compensation.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Minister, I'm not against that. I am not saying that we shouldn't pursue reconciliation with indigenous peoples. I am saying that I believe that $6 million in government funds are being used to shore up the Trans Mountain project.

I believe that the Minister of Finance's statement did not take into account all of the factors surrounding the government funds that were invested in the project. That is what I'm saying. I'm not talking about reconciliation. I'm simply saying that once again taxpayer dollars are being used for Trans Mountain.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Simard, as I said previously, this is perfectly normal, just like when we had conversations and made investments to protect the caribou impacted by your region's forestry sectors. It is exactly the same thing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I don't quite agree with you, but let's move on to something else.

Do you agree with Mr. Guilbeault, who said that there will be no more government money for the oil and gas sector as of 2023?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As stated in my mandate letter, we are committed to eliminating inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels by 2023.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The government is saying that it will eliminate inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels but neglects to define “inefficient”. How interesting.

We heard Mr. Winterhalt from Export Development Canada at a previous meeting. I asked him a question about a very interesting statement made by Mr. Guilbeault during the last election campaign. He said that there would be no more direct or indirect subsidies and no more tax breaks for the oil and gas sector as of 2023.

Mr. Winterhalt's answer surprised me. He said that in 2023, there would still be some indirect subsidies as well as tax breaks for the oil and gas sector. Is Mr. Winterhalt's answer in line with your promise? Is it in line with the government's commitment?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I said, we are committed to eliminating inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels in 2022 and setting up a plan to progressively eliminate subsidies for the fossil fuels sector, as well as any support given by federal Crown corporations.

However, any investments made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the oil, steel and forestry sectors are not inefficient subsidies. We have promised to eliminate subsidies that increase oil and gas production or exploration.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Was Mr. Guilbeault being a bit too ambitious or was he mistaken when he stated that in 2023, there would be no more subsidies? From what I understand, it's obvious that there will still be fossil fuel subsidies in 2023. We can quibble about what constitutes an inefficient subsidy, but in the meantime, the government continues to provide financial support to the fossil fuel sector.

A week ago, a stakeholder told us that the government has provided direct support to the oil and gas sector in 2020, 2021 and 2022 to the tune of $18 billion per year. That's not inconsequential. I can't believe that's $18 billion worth of inefficient subsidies. I get the impression that the concept of inefficient subsidies is a tool that allows the government to continue to provide financial support to the oil and gas sector.

I don't know how your work is coming along, but when will you be able to give us a definition of an inefficient subsidy?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

We have a clear definition. Almost all the inefficient subsidies that exist in Canada come from the provinces and territories. That said, and as Mr. Guilbeault stated, we have promised to eliminate inefficient subsidies. We completely agree on this.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I understand, Minister.

I will finish by telling you about what surprised me last week...

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry, but we're out of time.

Just so you know, Minister, we are having a slight issue. Apparently we're going see if we can swap out your headset. We'll turn it over to the technical team for a minute to to try to sort out the connectivity and quality issues.

We're suspended now and we'll be back in a minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We'll resume. We're back in session now.

We'll go to Mr. Angus, who will have seven and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure, Minister Wilkinson, to have you come back to our committee.

There was a lot of disappointment coming out of COP27. Many of the environmental representatives who were there came out saying that they believe the 1.5°C threshold is now on life support.

Would that be the position of your government?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

No, it would not be the position of our government. I think there has been enormous progress made over the course of the past few years.

This COP was largely an implementation COP, so I don't think there was huge expectation of ratcheting up a lot of the targets, but I think there was a huge move in Glasgow, and we expect that to continue going forward.

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

On November 11, your colleague Minister Guilbeault stated that if every country did its part, heating would be limited to between 1.7°C and 2.4°C.

Was Mr. Guilbeault talking off on his own? The 1.7°C or 1.8°C represents an irreversible impact to the planet. Why did he make that statement?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, I think he's speaking to the state of play.

At Glasgow, you saw the number come down, from between 2.8°C and 3°C to somewhere around 2.5°C or a bit below. At this COP, you saw a movement from 2.1°C to 2°C. That's not 1.5°C, but it's still some modest progress. Of course, we all have to be looking to raise our level of ambition as we move forward.

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

The concern for people is that modest progress isn't good enough right now given the fact that if we go past 1.5°C, we are seeing potentially.... Well, we're already starting to see catastrophic impacts on communities and the planet.

I want to switch to a report produced by the Global Carbon Project. It found that Canada was the only country in the G7 where methane and nitrous oxide emissions have risen.

Have you compared what your department has done with what the Europeans are saying, which is that our methane emissions have gone up rather than down?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, I would say a couple of things.

There are various sources of methane emissions in the economy. We've signed on to the global methane pledge alongside a range of different countries that have a target for reducing methane across the economy.

The primary focus for Canada has been on reducing methane from the oil and gas sector as the first step. Obviously agriculture is more difficult, but we have made enormous progress. Basically, both Alberta and Saskatchewan have achieved their 2025 targets already, but we need to continue to do more. Municipalities have to cap their landfills. We need to find different solutions for agriculture, and we need to continue to push them because methane is critically important.

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

Methane is a planet killer. We've put out $675 million, yet we're the only country in the G7 where methane continues to rise. I would say that's a serious failure on the part of the government.

I would also—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Actually, it's not in the oil and gas sector, because we have seen significant reductions there. Of course, methane monitoring is getting better, and we are finding that methane across the world is actually a bigger challenge than many people thought, because—

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

It is a bigger challenge.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

—we are getting better at tracking it through satellites—

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

We're not getting better at reducing it, because it keeps going up.

I'd like to switch tack.

The European Commission's emissions database for global atmospheric research said that the one hope for keeping to 1.5°C is the fact that 24 countries saw significant economic growth between 2012 and 2021 and still cut their emissions. However, Canada was not among them. This past year, emissions went up again after the dip during the pandemic.

How are we going to drop emissions 40% to 45% by 2030 if they are going back up again?