Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ippersiel, I really like what you just said, that inaction comes at a cost. I agree with you completely.

So I am pleading with you not to interpret what I am about to say to you as a criticism of your work. I am simply trying to better understand your mandate.

In her introduction, Ms. Ippersiel talked about some principles and values that would allow us to reach our targets. That is the point I would like to come back to.

You have talked a great deal about what your mandate is. As I listened to you, I wondered whether you have the autonomy, the independence, you need to make recommendations which, at times, are going to take some courage to make to the government.

I was talking to you just now about principles that are basically quite simple. I am not an expert in environmental matters, but I often hear about the idea of polluter pays, a bonus-malus system, where those with bad practices are not rewarded for them. However, my impression is that, in the studies that we have been doing at this committee for some time, there is a kind of quest for the Holy Grail. By that, I mean that people want to make the oil and gas sector into a promising front in the fight against climate change, when it is precisely that sector that is causing the problems.

So one of my little concerns is whether, in the recommendations that you are going to be making, you will have enough autonomy, whether you will be independent enough.

Let me give you one very simple example.

We did a study on hydrogen. A number of people came to tell us that a price has to be put on the molecule. The price of a molecule of hydrogen made from hydroelectricity or from biomass will perhaps be a little higher. But no one seems to be calculating that the cost of a molecule of hydrogen made from gas and from carbon capture strategies is also high. Often, there is an attempt to bury the fact that the technology comes at a cost.

In that context, are you going to have enough autonomy to be able to say that it is a bad thing to put all our eggs in the oil and gas basket in an attempt to reduce emissions?

[Marie-Pierre Ippersiel]

I will comment on the beginning of your question. As for hydrogen, my colleague knows much more about it than I do.

Clearly—and you have my assurance on this, Mr. Simard—all the members of our group care a great deal about their independence, their autonomy. It is a fundamental principle, on the basis of which everyone agreed to commit the required time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As for the issue of hydrogen—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll let Mr. Wicklum answer, if he can answer in 30 seconds. Both the Conservative and Liberal witnesses went 45 seconds over the time, so I'll give you 30 seconds if you could try to answer or contribute.

[Dan Wicklum]

We feel completely independent. We continuously check our operations and how we interact with the government to make sure that we are independent. We are confident that we're independent.

As to whether the government supports the oil and gas sector.... Again, we're thinking deeply about how the government could most optimally drive the country to net zero and where the supports should be across multiple sectors. Even though we've been asked about this one specific oil and gas task, we think that it cannot be set in isolation, and there has to be a very deliberate decision about supports across...even within the context of driving oil and gas to zero.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, you have the last two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Going by what you have, your 10 values and principles do not allow for increases in greenhouse gas emissions. That's in your principles. The fact is that we're looking at a possible million-barrel-a-day increase.

How do we square that? Are you telling us it's possible to increase production by a million barrels a day and not have any greenhouse gas emissions?

[Dan Wicklum]

Are you getting that million-barrel increase number from the Canada Energy Regulator forecast report?

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

Yes, and what's planned by TMX, which is being finalized and built.

[Dan Wicklum]

We take a look at that forecast from the Canada Energy Regulator and see it as one of many prognostications about what the future will look like. The one we rely on the most is from the International Energy Agency, which predicts that by 2050, gas consumption globally will be down by 55% and oil by 75%—

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

I see that, but the fundamental problem here is that greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise dramatically.

[Dan Wicklum]

Especially in the oil and gas sectors, yes, they have.

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

That's in the oil and gas sector. You're right.

The Prime Minister stood in Paris and said “Canada's back”. Since then, the environment commissioner has said that we have become the outlier of the G7 and that we have gone from failure to failure. The Prime Minister then stood at COP26 and said there would be an emissions cap, without talking to you guys.

I'm asking a straightforward question. If we're going to be moving forward with increases in production, how can we tell anybody on the planet that we're going to be doing what you call prioritizing early and deep reductions? These are two contradictory positions.

Will you be advising the government that they're going to have to move toward capping production in a serious way in order to cap emissions? That seems to be the logical question here.

Do you agree?

[Dan Wicklum]

No. I'll unpack that question.

We're not going to advise to cap production, because this is about emissions.

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

Can you tell me that you can increase production upwards of a million barrels a day or more, and then decrease emissions? Are you saying it's possible?

[Dan Wicklum]

We're not addressing that question, because it's an artificial question. The concept of increasing—

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

That's not an artificial question. That is the real question the planet is facing. That is your obligation, and to tell me that it's an artificial question.... If you're mandated not to have an increase in emissions, how do you tell me that you can have an increase in production and that the question of the emissions is not a factor?

That's your job.

[Dan Wicklum]

There's a tension here between production levels and intensity. If you combine production levels with the intensity of the product, you get emissions.

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

I get that.

[Dan Wicklum]

There are scenarios where—

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

But have you ever seen those scenarios? The emissions have gone up year after year. They've never gone down—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm going to have to jump in.

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

That's not artificial. We're talking real world here.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I hate to cut it off here, but we are at time. We're at two o'clock, which is when I said we would have to end the meeting.

I want to thank Ms. Ippersiel and Mr. Wicklum for joining us. I know you rearranged your schedules. It was very important for our committee to hear from you near the start of this particular study, so I thank you for making yourselves available today.

To the committee, we are going to be meeting again this afternoon at 3:30. We'll be in a different room, I think over in West Block this afternoon. We have five witnesses appearing, as per the notice of meeting.

With that, we are adjourned.