Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Guilbeault, I know you had to accept the North Bay project, perhaps against your will, but there's something that really bothers me about that and it comes up in Bill C-49: non-compliance with marine biodiversity requirements. Permits would be issued for projects in marine refuges.

You and I have previously discussed the Quebec caribou issue on a number of occasions. I think there's a double standard here. In connection with the Species at Risk Act, you briefly spoke about the possibility of making an order in Quebec. I understand how complex the caribou issue is, but I believe the logging industry enables us to sequester carbon in forests, whereas the hydrocarbon industry makes no contributions to reducing the intensity of our greenhouse gas emissions.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

In addition, don't you have any concerns regarding the preservation of marine biodiversity?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Of course I do. That's why Canada offered to host COP15 and why we managed to reach an agreement with our international partners that many have characterized as historic, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which provides that we must protect at least 30% of our lands and oceans by 2030. That means we'll have to make choices and trade-offs regarding the kind of offshore development and land-based projects we engage in.

Mr. Simard, we both know that virtually every human activity has an impact on the environment, whether it's a transmission line or a wind farm. What we need to do is decide to support activities that have the least impact on the environment. That's the role we have to take on as a society.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

You said we would have to make choices and trade-offs. The problem is that I get the impression the oil and gas industry often comes out on the winning end in these processes.

You nevertheless reacted promptly and requested that Quebec propose a solution to the caribou issue. You even indicated on many occasions that it would be possible to protect the caribou by means of an order. However, in all the give and take, I never heard you speak that firmly when it came to protecting marine refuges.

That's consistent with what I told you earlier, that Canada is a prisoner of its own oil industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Just give a very brief answer, please. We are at time.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

We have introduced new directives respecting marine refuges and even oil exploration. We will be pleased to follow up on this subject, in writing, with your office, Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Angus for two and half minutes.

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

Thank you.

I don't know of another time when we've been so dependent on looking at what the Americans are doing, but the Biden administration is really setting the mark for whether we are going to be in the game or not.

Recently, the Biden administration did something very surprising. They put a pause on LNG. President Biden said that the pause on new LNG “sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time”. We know that LNG is 90% methane and that there's a lot of leakage along the whole way.

Then he said that the Republicans who were supporting ever-expanding fossil fuel infrastructure “willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis”. I certainly know that my colleagues in the Conservatives are there, but I guess I'm going to ask you this: Is Canada willing to put a moratorium on LNG because of the issues of methane and the leakage and the fact that we are having to deal with the climate crisis at every level?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you for the question.

As you know, the constitutional power of the federal government versus the states in the United States is different from what it is in Canada. We don't have power over the development of energy projects, but where we can act and are acting is on the pollution. In the cap, the framework that was announced in December, we have announced that emissions from LNG terminals would come under the oil and gas cap that we're in the process of putting in place.

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

Good to know.

My colleague from Cumberland—Colchester made a pretty declarative statement that there was absolutely no economic case for hydrogen. He said that everybody knows that. Well, I met with the German chancellor, and he seemed to think that Canadian hydrogen was very interesting to him.

Can you say what your government's view is? Is there an opportunity for hydrogen in Atlantic Canada—in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador—in making jobs? Is there an economic case for hydrogen, or are the Conservatives right that this is just another crazy scheme and that we shouldn't be supporting it?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I've also had the pleasure of speaking with the German chancellor and the deputy chancellor on this. Certainly, when it comes to Germany and to many other European countries, there is a very high level of interest in the potential for Canada to produce hydrogen using renewable energy, like the project that we're seeing Newfoundland that, for reasons that elude me, is opposed by the Conservative Party of Canada. This is a first, and I believe that we will see many more of these types of projects moving forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Patzer for five minutes.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much for coming today, Minister. I'll just correct your dishonest opinion about the Conservative Party. We do actually support the provinces to be able to—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

It's unparliamentary to refer to someone as being dishonest. It's just not correct language to be using in a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, for your point of order.

Colleagues, I would ask that we not use language that is unparliamentary or that accuses a member.

You can proceed with your questioning, Mr. Patzer. Just be a bit more careful on some of the words that you use.

Go ahead.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Sure.

Your misleading statement that Conservatives don't support offshore wind development is actually factually incorrect. We do support the provinces' ability to develop whatever types of resources they want. What we object to is government legislation that is going to hamstring the provinces' ability to do that.

This bill has no fewer than 30 references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. Conservatives want to see this bill corrected so that there won't have to be a constitutional challenge to it because of the fact that there are largely unconstitutional parts referenced in this bill.

Therefore, Minister, when will you fix the Impact Assessment Act so that it is, indeed, constitutional?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I would beg to differ in your characterization of this bill with regard to provincial powers.

I have here a quote from Premier Andrew Furey: “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49”. That doesn't seem to me like we're forcing someone to do something.

I have another quote from Premier Tim Houston.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Minister.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

He says, “Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.”

That is coming from a Conservative premier.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, there are certain regulations in this bill that are needed and necessary. We all know that. However, what we also know is that there are over 30 references to the unconstitutional elements of the Impact Assessment Act that, so far, your government has done absolutely nothing to address.

Therefore, one more time, Minister.... When will you fix the Impact Assessment Act so that it is constitutional?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

You say that there are elements in this bill that are needed and supported by Atlantic premiers, yet you continue to say that you will vote against this bill. I find these two statements difficult to reconcile.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Minister, if this bill passes as it is, it will be unconstitutional because of the largely unconstitutional parts of it. That is a pretty obvious reason why one would vote against this bill. There would be continued uncertainty for investors and also for the provinces. The provincial stakeholders want this bill because, yes, there are updates to the regulations that need to happen. We all get that, and we all agree with that.

One more time.... What is the date on which you'll fix the Impact Assessment Act so that it's constitutional, so that there will be certainty for investors to come and invest in offshore wind off of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I do not know if you took the time to read the opinion of the Supreme Court on the Impact Assessment Act, but the Supreme Court specifically said that there were elements of the Impact Assessment Act that were very constitutional and that there are elements on which we need to work. My government and my department, in collaboration with Parks Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency, will be coming forward very shortly with amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I look forward to seeing what those are because I think that will be needed for this bill to actually pass without there being any issues, as your former Bill C-69 has encountered.

Now, Minister, does the government measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from the federal carbon tax?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Absolutely. We produced a report before Christmas that's publicly available. We produced an annual report called the greenhouse gas inventory report, which measures where Canada is in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

You will be pleased to know that, since we came into power in 2015, we've managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below our 2015 levels. When we came into power, they were going to be 12% above the 2015 level by 2030.