Evidence of meeting #97 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipeline.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Minister Wilkinson. The time's up.
I'll now go to Monsieur Simard for six minutes.
May 6th, 2024 / 3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for being with us, Mr. Minister.
Earlier, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that we need to accept the scientific reality of climate change. I agree with you on that.
The scientific reality of climate change shows us that one of the main drivers of these changes is the oil and gas sector. Over the past four years, your government has provided financial support to that sector to the tune of $65 billion. For 2023 alone, we're talking about $18 billion. If I look at the budget, I see that by 2035 there will be up to $83 billion in tax credits and benefits for that sector.
Add to that, of course, the commissioning of Trans Mountain last week, which will deliver 890,000 barrels of crude oil per day for a total of $34 billion. That project was originally supposed to cost $7.4 billion, but it has now reached $34 billion.
I have a fairly simple question for you. If you got to do Trans Mountain over again, do you think you would pass on it?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
We have a plan to fight climate change. Of course, there also has to be an energy transition. It can't be done overnight. Of course, we need to have access to the resources that we use now and will use over the next 20 or 30 years. The Trans Mountain project is important because it helps us ensure that Canada receives a fair price for its resources.
In addition, we obviously have to have a plan to accelerate the transition and another to reduce greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions, not only in the oil and gas sector, but also in all other sectors of the economy. That's exactly what we've done by putting a cap on emissions through the methane regulations. We've done a lot of other things as well.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Yes, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
We studied the emissions cap here at committee. However, there was never any mention of a cap on production.
However, in my opinion, reducing the carbon intensity of the oil and gas sector by increasing its production capacity is completely illogical. This oil will not only be under scrutiny, it will be burned one day or another and will therefore generate GHGs. Your government was supposed to come up with a definition of an inefficient subsidy in 2023 and end financial support for fossil fuels. That didn't happen. In addition, there are generous tax credits.
Don't you find you're being complacent with the oil and gas industry?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
As I said, we're the first in the world to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. We're the only country in the world that has done that. The other countries want to get there by 2025, not right away.
We obviously need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. We also need to do it in all sectors of the economy. We need to have a plan that reflects our targets. As I said before, we are now on track to meet the 2030 targets.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I want to talk briefly about nuclear energy.
Over the past few months, the regulation of nuclear waste has been somewhat loosened. On May 2, we learned that waste water had been spilled at the Chalk River site. Unfortunately, we're not in a position to determine what contaminants were spilled or how much was spilled, which is still a concern, given that there seems to be a desire to reduce accountability for nuclear waste.
Mr. Wilkinson, as you know, the Ottawa River is the source of drinking water for a significant number of Quebec residents. Does that concern you?
At the very least, would it not be appropriate to determine what contaminants were spilled?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Actually, a team of experts is looking into that.
Having said that, I want to add that no nuclear radioactive contaminants were spilled, only waste water. The Department of the Environment needs to conduct an investigation and discuss the matter with Chalk River.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Waste water was spilled, which means that the safeguards in place to ensure that there are no deficiencies in the system at Chalk River have failed.
How can we trust the measures in place, given that you seem to want to declassify some radioactive waste?
A number of stakeholders have told us that all this is being done with as little consultation as possible.
Don't you think you should review certain things around radioactive waste?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Waste water is a problem not only at that facility, but in all municipalities across the country. We have to manage that all the time, and it's important to do that, obviously. There has to be an investigation to find out what's going on.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
What about the declassification of some radioactive waste, which will go from intermediate-level to low-level?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Monsieur Simard, I'm sorry. The time is up. You can hold that question for your next round. Thank you.
We'll now go to Mr. Angus for six minutes.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In looking at the latest greenhouse gas emission numbers, we see that once again the oil and gas sector continues to rise, so it could be argued that other sectors are doing their part, but the oil and gas sector continues to rise.
Given the fact that your government spent $34 billion building a pipeline when there was no economic case and we're looking at an increase in production from 300,000 barrels a day to 900,000 barrels a day, how much emissions are you factoring in from this increase?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Mr. Angus, my apologies. I'm going to ask you to hold that thought.
We have the bells ringing, and I do need unanimous consent to continue and to finish this round.
Is it fine to to finish this round?
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I'm just trying for a little bit of fairness here, just a little bit.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
You were cut off in mid-sentence in your first 15 seconds, so go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We're looking at the latest greenhouse gas emissions, and yet again, oil and gas emissions continue to increase. The government has told us all these promises about decreasing oil and gas emissions, and yet it's not happening.
Now you've spent $34 billion of public money in building a pipeline for which there was no case in the private sector. That will increase production from 300,000 to 900,000 barrels a day. How much more emissions are you looking at being added to the annual toll coming from the oil and gas sector?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Let me start just by correcting one thing you said. It's not an increase in production of 300,000 to 800,000; it's an increase in pipeline capacity. There is significant oil that has been moving by rail that now will move in the pipeline. Production has not increased, but certainly all of the—
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jonathan Wilkinson Liberal North Vancouver, BC
All the increases that are expected in production are factored into the forecast going forward in terms of emissions from the oil and gas sector.
Mr. Angus, I would agree with the beginning of your comment, which is that we do need to see reductions in absolute emissions coming from the oil and gas sector. It is certainly time that we see the Pathways folks and others put their money where their mouths are.