Natural Resources Committee on May 6th, 2024

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

They're putting our money where their mouth is and you're giving it to them.

Mr. Wilkinson, I have enormous respect for you, but I've heard this line from your government for nine years, which is that we can drink our way to sobriety. Just give them a few more drinks and they're going to get better.

For you to say not to worry—that you're going to build this extra pipeline, but it's not going to rapidly increase production—is ridiculous. We've seen Imperial announcing massive increases in the final quarter of last year. They're saying they're going to really ramp up production at Kearl Lake because of TMX.

Are you trying to tell us not to worry because this is just going to take stuff off the trains and it's not going to create a massive increase, or are you telling us that the emissions that are going to come out of this increase somehow are going to be clean?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

What I'm saying to you is that it is important that we actually see emissions go down in the oil and gas sector. That is why we have put into place regulations with respect to methane and why we are enhancing those going forward. It is why we are putting a cap on oil and gas emissions across the country. We're the only country in the world to do that.

That is about ensuring that the oil and gas sector plays a role in reducing emissions across this country.

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

You're saying we're going to put a cap on while we're vastly increasing export capacity of the sector that causes the highest GHG emissions—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

We are going to ensure that the oil and and gas sector makes its contribution to Canada's emissions reduction plan, just like the auto sector, just like cement and just like everyone else.

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

The issue was that with $34 billion of public money, there was no private sector case. The International Energy Agency has warned against governments investing in oil infrastructure because of stranded assets. There was no case, and then you built them a pipeline.

What we've been told from the energy regulator and from analysis is that it would be too expensive. The toll fees would be too high to pay off the cost. Those toll fees have been capped at 22%, which means that the public is going to pick up 78% of every barrel going through the pipeline.

Will you guarantee to us that the public is not going to pay a dime and that all of the money that the public paid to the Pathways Alliance is going to be paid back, barrel by barrel?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

First of all, the Government of Canada only bought the pipeline because of the obstruction of the NDP government in British Columbia. Certainly one of the loudest cheerleaders in terms of the Government of Canada taking that on was the NDP premier of Alberta.

At the end of the day, the pipeline cost more than we expected it to cost at the beginning, but we still believe very strongly that there is great value in the pipeline. As the Minister of Finance has said, we expect that we are going to be able to get our money back.

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

I would love to think that the NDP government in B.C. had such a big influence on you, but you bought that pipeline because there was no private sector case. You were doing a favour for Pathways Alliance. These are companies that have never, ever shown any initiative to lower emissions. There's no record of them doing that, yet we're on the hook for $34 billion.

To go back to my question, the toll fees have been capped at 22% because this boondoggle can't pay for itself. That means we are on the hook for covering off the cost of every barrel shipped by Imperial or any of the other companies.

How are we going to be guaranteed that we're not subsidizing 78% per barrel for every barrel that's shipped down that pipeline?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr Angus, I have great respect for you as well, but you're just wrong about that.

When Minister Heyman in British Columbia and the then-premier of British Columbia said they would use all tools in the tool box to stop the Trans Mountain pipeline, that created such uncertainty that it made it very difficult for a private sector entity to proceed with it.

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

You're not answering the question. You're trying to pick a fight about the B.C. NDP. Will we have to pay for it?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I would say that the value of the Trans Mountain pipeline, both for the companies in Alberta and for the the Canadian public, remains strong.

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

Will we have to pay?

I don't know anybody in the B.C. NDP, I have to tell you, except in my own caucus. I'm sure they play a huge role in this, but you're avoiding the question.

We paid $34 billion of public money for a project that had no business case. Now to make it pay back, it has to be paid back through the toll fees.

Are we going to be on the hook for the toll fees for every single barrel that goes through there? The CER, the Canada Energy Regulator, says we're going to be paying 78% per barrel of the cost.

Is that yes or no?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

That's actually not what the CER said.

The Government of Canada doesn't intend to be the long-term owner of the pipeline. We do intend to sell it and we believe that we will recoup the money that the Government of Canada has invested in the pipeline.

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

Are we going to sell it for $34 billion, or are you going to give it away?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Angus and Minister Wilkinson, thank you for your round of questioning.

Colleagues, I propose—as bells are ringing, so we have about 23 minutes—one round, a shortened round. We can go with four, four, two and two minutes, or with five, five and two of 2.5 minutes. I just want to give colleagues enough time.

A round with five minutes, five minutes, and two members of 2.5 minutes gives us 15 minutes, which gives you seven minutes to vote. Are we good with that, or should we go with a shorter round of four, four, two and two?

Do we have unanimous consent for four, four, two and two minutes? I know that our colleague Mr. Morrice, at the end of that four, four, two and two, would like to ask a question as well. Do we have unanimous consent to allow him to ask a question at the end of all questions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I see consent, so we'll go with four, four, two and two minutes, and one question for Mr. Morrice to finish. Let's go.

Our next round is a four-minute round, and we go to Ms. Stubbs for four minutes. Go ahead. The floor is yours, Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Minister. Again, I just wonder, Minister, if you can tell Canadians how much carbon Canada sequesters annually.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm sorry. How much...?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

How much carbon does Canada sequester annually?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

How much carbon does Canada sequester annually? I don't know.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It seems that if a government's trying to achieve net-zero emissions performance, then what should be known is how much carbon Canada sequesters on an annual basis, let's say through—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Are you talking about forest sequestration?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—forest management and tree-planting or through grasslands.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

You're talking about forest sequestration.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Well, there are a variety of ways that carbon can be sequestered.