Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 9th, 2022

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

Would that mean an increase in production?

I'm just trying to get a straight answer here.

[Tim McMillan]

To be absolutely clear, the largest reduction in Canada is phasing out coal.

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

I know.

[Tim McMillan]

We can play a major role in doing that globally by increasing our production.

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

Okay, increasing production.

That's good. I just like people to be clear.

[Tim McMillan]

I appreciate that.

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

Then we're looking at increasing production.

I listened to your comments on the International Energy Agency and I read their 2050 report on net zero and they talk about prosperity, but they talk about prosperity as being tied to a 1.5°C increase in temperature and say that we aren't even close to that. They say that greenhouse gas emissions have risen dramatically, and they have risen dramatically in Canada. We are now the most carbon-intensive site on the planet.

The International Energy Agency says, to meet our targets, there can be no new fossil fuel projects come online. Would you agree with that?

[Tim McMillan]

The International Energy Agency has several different scenarios. I referenced their base case, but they did put out several other scenarios. The one you reference is their net-zero—

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

It's their net-zero scenario.

[Tim McMillan]

—scenario. Each of them uses different metrics in how they—

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

I know that, but at the International Energy Agency, they aren't radicals. I don't think they vote New Democrat, and they probably don't vote socialist. If they say there can be no new energy projects from fossil fuels coming online if we are to meet the target that the IPCC has set, can you maintain your level of production or increase it based on the existing projects, or are you supporting new projects coming online?

[Tim McMillan]

Again, that is one of their scenarios where they have some very specific criteria that go into it. I think a question for this committee is, if global demand is going to increase, if people around the world are looking for better lives, should that energy be coming from coal or from natural gas? Should it be coming from Canada or from Kazakhstan?

I will pick Canadian resources any day.

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

I guess the issue that we can't tell from your argument is that we've been told what happens to bitumen that's burned in China doesn't count; the only thing that counts is in the sands and at the wellhead. However, if we are not counting all the actual impacts of burning a barrel of oil, how do you tell us the world would be better off by us shipping bitumen, which right now is the highest carbon-intensive source on the planet, that it gets burned someplace else but we don't count that, yet we then say we're actually net zero?

Come on. That doesn't make sense.

[Tim McMillan]

Factually, there are different intensities of carbon oils from around the world. Bitumen from Canada is not the highest, so just factually that's not correct.

If China is going to enable their citizens to have better diets and they need energy from Canada or from Kazakstan or from Venezuela, I think the world is better served with responsibly produced Canadian energy.

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

I think China is doing pretty good with its diet right now, so I don't think we have to say that bitumen from Fort McMurray is going to keep people from starving.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that this is how the world is seeing us.

When The Wall Street Journal writes an article this January and refers to our oil industry as being “One of the World's Dirtiest Oil Patches”, that's a black eye. When they say that all the major investment banks have pulled out of Canada because we don't have a credible investment plan, that's a black eye. When The New York Times writes that world investors are leaving “Dirty Fuel” and they talk about Canada, that's a black eye.

I think you should be coming to our committee and saying “we are committed to a cap”—which I haven't heard—and “we're committed to serious reductions, and being an industry that's awash with money right now, we're willing to put the money on the line”.

Is that something you guys are willing to do?

[Tim McMillan]

You know, I think your question is very good. I wanted to be clear in my opening comments that our industry is committed to continuous improvement, we are committed to efficient climate policy, we are committed to being world class and we will continue to improve upon the work we've done—

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

I thank you for that.

I come from a resource region, but when I see The Wall Street Journal saying that we have the “dirtiest” sites on the planet, that's not good enough, not for our country. We need to do better. That's why we have to talk about this cap in a credible manner.

[Tim McMillan]

I appreciate your point of view.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Charlie, you still have about 25 seconds if you want them

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

I thought you were waving that yellow card at me—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Everyone else went 25 seconds over. If you want a jump, I'm giving you one quick question.

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

No, no. Now you've thrown me off my game. I've been completely thrown off.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Go ahead and give it to someone else. I know what you're up to.