Natural Resources Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's correct. We have the main motion, and we have an amendment that's been proposed by Mrs. Stubbs. Everybody received it in their inboxes, so you should have it.

We are proceeding to the next speaker, who is Monsieur Simard.

Monsieur Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to support Mr. Angus's motion. I will also support Ms. Stubbs' amendment.

I tabled a similar motion over a year ago. I find it rather surprising that we are in agreement for diametrically opposed reasons. Unlike Ms. Stubbs, I don't believe there's an anti-energy, anti-capitalist ideology. At least, I don't think I'm part of an anti-energy, anti-capitalist ideology. I think we're just advocating for consistency in the energy transition, yet what the federal government is doing with this kind of investment in the Trans Mountain pipeline is anything but. So it goes without saying that we want to study this issue.

In fact, I find it astonishing that my Conservative friends are prepared to support such a motion. One of my most vivid memories of coming to the House of Commons in 2019 was hearing my Conservative colleagues shout about building this pipeline and seeing people wearing buttons that said they loved oil and gas.

Today we are studying the issue of electricity. I am very proud of Hydro-Québec, but it would never occur to me to shout about building pylons or to wear a button that says I love electricity. The extent to which my Conservative colleagues see oil as an identity boggles the mind. I will leave it at that, because if we're in agreement and are now ready to study the pipeline issue, so much the better.

I also note that in 2020, before our last election campaign, the pipeline project was up to $17 billion. That matched all the investments in the federal government's green recovery plan. A single oil project costs as much as the entire green recovery plan. In my opinion, this perfectly illustrates how far Canada has drifted when it comes to fossil fuel.

The budget that was just tabled shows that between now and 2035, $83 billion will be sent to the oil and gas companies, those gluttons for public funds who, year after year, generate record profits and can manipulate refining margins whenever they like to enrich themselves at the public's expense.

During question period, I often hear my Conservative colleagues say that they are standing up for low-income earners, people who are struggling to afford housing, clothing and food. However, I rarely hear them criticizing the greedy oil and gas sector, which, during and after the pandemic, got rich on the backs of the most vulnerable.

So, for all these reasons, I view my colleague Mr. Angus's motion very favourably, even though it may be poorly worded in French. The reference to ArriveCAN makes the motion difficult to read in French. However, the intent of it is very clear. I certainly support its thrust. I also support prioritizing the proposed study, and I thank Ms. Stubbs for that. We'll vote on Ms. Stubbs' amendment, but I'll be moving another amendment, perhaps afterwards.

I would like to hear from the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, of course, and the Minister of Finance. I think we should also hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Let's recall that he produced a report dispelling the myth that the government was trying to create at the time, according to which profits from the pipeline would be reinvested in clean energy.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that those profits did not exist and nor would they subsequently. However, unless you're a magician, it is quite difficult to invest something that does not exist in clean energy. I don't see how we can do that.

So I think we should also invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer to come and discuss the Trans Mountain pipeline and talk to us about his report. Perhaps he has further information that could be of interest and relevance to us. I agree with Mr. Angus. We did a study on the emissions cap. But how do you cap emissions when you're trying to increase production?

It's completely inconsistent. We cannot cap greenhouse gas emissions while increasing oil and gas production. That is not how we'll succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Call a spade a spade.

Other examples were provided. For instance, Mr. Angus said that if someone has a problem with alcohol, they won't get sober by drinking more. We ourselves say that you shouldn't eat poutine when you're on a diet. Just as there is no such thing as a poutine diet, there is no low-carbon oil. We can't produce more oil if we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

For all these reasons, I will vote in favour of Mr. Angus's motion and I will support Ms. Stubbs' amendment. I think it is in our best interest to ask this question about the pipeline without further ado. I have wanted the committee to conduct a study on this for over two years. I will then move a very simple amendment to invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer to testify.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Procedurally, Mr. Simard, we have an amendment, so if your subamendment amends the amendment, we can deal with it. However, if it does not specifically deal with the amendment, once we deal with it, we'll have your amendment at that time. Is that clear?

I want to make sure that, procedurally, once we deal with this amendment, it will be off the table. You can move your amendment then and we can have that conversation.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, of course. That's what I was saying, Mr. Chair: Afterwards, I will move an amendment asking that the committee also invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer to testify.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's very good. Thank you.

We had a motion moved by Mr. Angus, and we have an amendment now on the floor brought forward by Mrs. Stubbs. We have a speaking order for it.

Mr. Patzer, you are next in the speaking order. We're on the amendment to the main motion.

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

Thank you.

To the points that Mario was making, we can think of a lot of things that $34 billion could have done for Canadians besides subsidizing a pipeline that could have, should have and would have been built by the private sector. A proponent was going to do it. They had the business case ready to go. I think we agree on that point.

I think for us, there's another angle here. Imagine if this was all about eliminating hydro power from Quebec, from Manitoba, from B.C. or from Newfoundland. That would not go over very well. I think everyone at this table agrees that hydro power is a good thing. It is a strategic advantage for Quebec that they have hydro power. They have a great resource there. It's a good thing. We utilize it in Saskatchewan, although not nearly as much because we don't have as much suitable terrain to do it. We have the two big rivers and we've utilized it a bit, but we're quite limited in what we can do with that resource going forward.

We also know about the exorbitant costs and timelines to build new projects like that. That's another reason why our province, for example, wouldn't be looking to expand hydro. To put it into context, we wouldn't ever suggest that we eliminate another province's main resource. That's part of what happens when we start talking about emissions caps. We're talking about eliminating a very precious resource and commodity that we have in our provinces, which we extract and use with the highest standards possible in the world.

Methane reductions have happened quite rapidly in Saskatchewan. They're continuing to do more on it because they want more reductions in methane gases. If the United States adopted our flare gas generation regulation, American emissions would drop drastically. We have tighter regulations on that. If the rest of the world adopted our regulations on production, global GHGs would drop dramatically.

That's part of the story we're trying to tell: We have great standards. We have what the world should be doing, but it's not. Let's tell that story. If this is truly about global emissions, let's do what we can to help other countries reduce theirs, which is to adopt our regulations. Certain regulations are pancaked and aren't necessary, and that's part of the discussion as well. However, I think the main point here is that we have such high standards in this country already, so let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater per se.

This is a good amendment. I definitely think the people we represent would love to see this study happen because people are concerned about the complete lack of fiscal, financial and monetary policy. Pick whichever word you want, it applies to this government. I know they're two separate things, but it applies either way.

People are concerned about that. When they see $34 billion being spent on something that it did not need to be spent on, people are concerned. They see what this money could and should have been used for, and it makes people upset.

We're definitely happy to do this study. I really like my colleague's amendment. Obviously, we're going to support Shannon's amendment, but we're going to support Charlie's motion as well.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

We'll go to Ms. Dabrusin on the amendment.

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

Thank you.

I'll make it a bit easier for everyone to have a sense of where my amendments are likely to go. I'm not tabling them right now, as obviously I can't while we're discussing this amendment, but as we're closing in on the end, it's important that we have a bit of context for what I'll be looking at.

One thing I'm looking to add to this motion is that it examines the impacts on Canada's economy and includes an invitation to “communities” after “taxpayers”. Again, I'm not moving this. I just think it's important, as we're having this conversation, that people see where I'm going. I think communities should be part of this conversation. I will also suggest that, rather than signalling the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Natural Resources, we replace them with “relevant ministers”. However, we can have our conversation about that, and as I said, we're not debating that piece.

I think it's going to be a hard piece, after we had witnesses here and were in the middle of a study, to just stop the study. There's no particular reason that we would stop the study we've already embarked on. To me, it seems like at this point we should be continuing with what we've been doing, which is this study. We don't have a long, heavy road, and to be honest, this study is really important. We're talking about emissions and issues of affordability and reliability—all these issues that are so important. I heard members opposite talk about what the impact is and what their communities have seen. I believe Mrs. Stubbs mentioned brownouts have happened in Alberta. What is the impact going to be of working between provinces, and how do we bridge those changes?

I think there's a lot we need to talk about that is really important for some of the baseline issues people have been talking about, even in the context of this motion. If we're talking about emissions reductions, what is happening with changes in the economy and what the regulatory frameworks will be, it makes the most sense for us to continue with witnesses, like what we did today, to hear about things like nuclear.

The example, from Ontario, of the transition that happened from coal-fired electricity to nuclear in large part—it was 60% of power in Ontario—is a very important story for people to hear. It shows us a lot of the pathways for getting to cleaner electricity, and it's a story that not enough people know, quite frankly. From my own experience, I don't think people realize that was a huge change. I tell this story often, but while I worked downtown, I'd look out of the building from my window and see a line of brown smudge over Lake Ontario. There were about 55 smog days a year, and it was because we had coal-fired electricity, so an electricity study is so important.

How did we get from 55 smog days a year to zero in Ontario? It's because we moved away from coal-fired electricity. We moved to cleaner energy. Actually, a big reason that we talk about a 84% clean grid is what happened in Ontario, and there should be a big shout-out to the Ontario government for what it did to move us over to the cleaner grid. That was done by doing exactly the kind of study we're talking about right now, which is on the electrical grid. What do we need to make sure that we have a clean electrical grid going forward?

To my mind, having the witnesses we intend to call and the ones we had today.... I mean, sure, let's bring them back. I would love to hear more from all of them. They had some really great beginning presentations, and I think when you hear them, you can tell they have a road map for how we do this. What are their insights that we should be looking at? To my mind, there's no good reason that we would upend the progress of this very important study to switch to something on which there's nothing new happening at this point. This is looking backwards. We're not talking about anything massive and urgent to change right now in the course of the study.

I'm not opposed to doing the study. I haven't opposed the study. That's not the position I'm taking. I'm just saying that to my mind, it makes real sense for us to focus on something that's very urgent and necessary. Let's continue with the study of how we move to a cleaner electricity grid.

We know that the last 16% is going to be the hardest. I think the witnesses are agreed on that. I think we recognize that. We've done the easy stuff, which is great. That's a real tribute to Canada. We're seeing that it's bringing in investments. I speak with industries that talk about how they're investing in Canada because when they're looking at their own ESG models, they want to be able to point to a clean grid. That's a draw for them. That's great.

How do we get the last 16%? The people we had before us could give us more of the information we need on that. They talked about the urgency. All of them, I believe, talked about the need to make sure that the work is done quickly given the plans they have and so they are able to contribute. We need an affordable and reliable electricity grid, but we also need to make sure we have a grid that is clean and responsive. They want to play a role. Mr. Angus was very clear about the fact that we need to work towards a clean grid. He was talking about the need to reduce emissions.

Climate anxiety is real for lots of people, and I think it's really important to acknowledge that. The fact is, in the last inventory report that we submitted, Canadian emissions were down to the lowest they had been in three decades if you pull out the COVID years. The COVID years are different. That is a tremendous success. That is a huge success. A lot of heavy lifting has been happening. It's a lot of heavy lifting from people who have to do the work to get it done. We have to work alongside them. We have to hear from them. There's really no point in having studies when we're not hearing from the witnesses we've called. This is showing that we're going in the right direction.

I can't highlight enough that I get frustrated when I hear people say that we haven't made any targets. There hasn't been a target over the time of this government. It's the 2026 interim target. We're on track to meeting the interim target. That's in the inventory report. That doesn't mean the work is done. I'll never be the one to say the work is done. What I would say is let's keep getting to the point where we—

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm having trouble hearing Ms. Dabrusin because of the commentary across the aisle.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll address your point of order, Mr. McKinnon.

Do you have a point of order as well?

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

Mr. Chair, on the same point of order, I'm sitting right beside her. I can hear Ms. Dabrusin perfectly fine. We have an earpiece to easily hear as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Everybody has different hearing and audio abilities. I would ask everybody to be respectful when folks are debating. Whisper if you're having a side conversation. I think everybody can do that, just to make sure everybody can hear and participate.

Thank you for your point of order.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I appreciate that he's really interested in this study given that he is new to this committee. He's been really engaged in wanting to make sure that we continue with the work we're doing on a clean electrical grid. Thank you very much, Mr. McKinnon.

The main piece that I would have to say is let's focus on what we have to do to reduce emissions. This study is a central part of what we have to do. Many issues were raised by the people who were here. Unfortunately, we were unable to get through all of their testimony.

Let's get this study done and—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

If you could hold for one second, we have a point of order by Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Chair, it's the second time that Ms. Dabrusin mentioned getting these specific witnesses back. I'm just curious if the clerk picked that up and if that's something the clerk and the chair can ensure.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that point of order.

I know that's been mentioned by a few folks. I don't know where this is going, so I don't know if we'll ever have that conversation again regarding the study, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Thank you for reminding me.

I'm mindful of time. You do have the floor, Ms. Dabrusin, but we will be running against the clock very soon and we have others on the speaking list. If you're not finished, keep going, and I will begin the next meeting with you. If you do end today, I will provide the same opportunity to somebody else.

Go ahead. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

I recognize that we are running up to a deadline, but to Mr. Dreeshen's point, yes, I think we should bring these people back. I think we should hear from all of them in more detail. That goes to my point that this study is important. Let's bring these witnesses back, and then we can do the heavy lifting we need to do to get to our plans on how we transition.

With all of these forms of energy we have in front of us, how do we work to support them to do the heavy lifting we need so we can have a clean grid? It's going to be essential to what we need. They've said themselves that double or triple the amount of electricity is going to be required. That's for many reasons, by the way. They pointed out it's because of data use, because of things like AI and because we're changing how we move our cars and vehicles and how we heat and cool our homes. It's all of those things.

Let's make sure that we get that important piece in, and then we can go on to the next study. I don't see any reason why we would disrupt what we're hearing right now and stop the process as we're doing it.

That's basically where I'm at. I'm not supportive of the amendment being proposed. I don't think we need it. I am fine with going ahead with the study, but I would say that this amendment is too disruptive to what we were hoping to do and that we had all agreed upon as a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We have others on the speaking list. Ms. Dabrusin, you still have the floor, so we can continue, but we are running against the clock for today's meeting.

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

Is it possible to vote on the subamendment so we get something done?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a speaking list, so we can't vote on the subamendment. If members want to take their names off the speaking list and want to go right to the subamendment, sure. If not—

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

I'll take my name off.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have you, Mr. Angus, and Mr. Patzer as well.

Ms. Dabrusin has the floor, so I'll offer it to her, but we are at the end of the time for the meeting today.

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

I move that we adjourn.

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

Don't we suspend because we have a speaking list to exhaust?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

She moved to adjourn, so we have to proceed with that.