Evidence of meeting #99 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 need.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dale Friesen  Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, and Chief Government Affairs Officer, ATCO
Timothy Egan  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
John Gorman  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Vittoria Bellissimo  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Renewable Energy Association
Francis Bradley  President and Chief Executive Officer, Electricity Canada
Carol McGlogan  President and Chief Executive Officier, Electro-Federation Canada

May 23rd, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Thank you very much.

I find it quite fascinating that we get a motion like this. Of course, Conservatives would also love to know how on earth the government managed to spend that much money on this project, especially when the private sector was fully willing and able to build this for significantly less. The fact is, the government chased them off and basically had to buy the pipeline, because they were busy speaking out of both sides of their mouth when it came to it. I think it's important to have that on the record.

I hope this will maybe be a starting point of the NDP voting against the government, because as of now, they continue to support and prop up the government and allow them to get away with things like this—

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Chair, I have a point of order.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Mr. Patzer, we have a point of order.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

I was hoping this would be a moment when the Conservatives support the NDP.

4:35 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

That's not a point of order. That's a point of debate. You can say that during your debate.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Thank you for that.

That would truly be putting actions to words. We'll see what happens with that.

We definitely welcome this study. A gross amount of taxpayer dollars are being spent on a project that, as I was saying, the private sector was fully willing to build. It's the constant moving of goalposts that makes it impossible.

We've just heard witnesses today talk about certainty for investors. That is the number one concern. A big reason the proponent got out of this project was that there was no certainty. We have heard this in many other projects that have been cancelled and delayed when it comes to resource development in this country. Again, it's the moving of goalposts and the uncertainty, the death by delay that we continue to see over and over again by the current government.

I definitely welcome this study. I think clarity about how this would work would be great to see.

I'll defer now to my colleague Mrs. Stubbs for her thoughts.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

We'll now go to Mrs. Stubbs.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I will offer support for this motion by our colleague Charlie. Before I get into the topic of TMX, I will be offering a friendly amendment to the motion to have this study supersede all the current work of the committee.

Clearly, there is still a lack of certainty and clarity on the government's requirements for urging proponents to meet its goals on electricity decarbonization, even though, as all of you have outlined numerous times, Canada's grid is already almost 90% clean. I think if you had a chance to answer, you probably would have said that your proponents and workers would have continued on that innovation, that even without the CERs, you probably would have hit 90% very rapidly. I'm going to take a gamble that that might have been your answer. You're certainly welcome to expand on that in your written submissions.

To all colleagues here, the reason Charlie's motion must supersede our existing work is that this government has promised ITCs for a year and a half and has not delivered. ITCs have been deployed in the United States for three years, and this federal government has talked a big game about caring about Canadian businesses, Canadian workers and Canadian taxpayers, saying it wants to compete with the United States. Of course, every single Canadian here knows that we cannot compete with the United States in a dollar-for-dollar subsidy race to the bottom of the barrel, because it is not affordable.

What we can do is compete in every possible way, and we can control our domestic policy and regulatory and fiscal agendas. That means actually working with the private sector to establish realistic targets with realistic timelines that are affordable, economic and possible with current technology. It means caring about where the generation comes from and the supply chains for materials. It means thinking about Canadian energy security, affordability, reliability and liability. It means contemplating national security on energy security.

It means not putting the cart before the horse, which this government has clearly done. It hasn't figured out, as all of you have called for in different ways, how to accelerate the recovery of resources that require it to meet its endgame and where they're all going to come from. We must contemplate that this work should be done by Canadians businesses, Canadian workers with Canadian technology, Canadian supply chains and Canadian products to protect Canadian security and pursue energy security with our North American partners and free and democratic allies around the world.

What's also clear is that there is no federal regulatory process right now. The cornerstone regulatory framework and initiative by this government was found to be largely unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada six months ago, and they've done nothing. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance now talks a big game about how this summer she's going to suddenly accelerate major project approvals and back the private sector and other proponents to get things built. Well, for 10 years, their track record of results shows that it's all false. We're sitting here with private sector proponents and developers asking for clarity and certainty on fiscal and regulatory regimes, and right now they're completely broken. There is no certainty or clarity at all. That's a direct result of this Liberal government, but also with participation from the NDP, the Bloc and the anti-energy activists who got us here. However, I digress, and I don't want to undermine the spirit of co-operation here with my colleague Charlie.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Don't undermine me.

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

What's at issue is a federal government that pancakes and layers on anti-competitive policies, taxes, targets and timelines that are detrimental to Canadians and our standard of life and that undermine the potential for reliable, affordable, accessible fuel and power, which are the absolute essentials to our everyday lives in this big, cold, developed, proud country.

I hope that our colleague will accept a friendly amendment to ensure that his motion will supersede all current work of this committee. I hope it will buy a bit of time, although it's urgent for the Liberals to listen to the people who generate, distribute and provide on the front lines to Canadians who need their power, their services, their products and their technologies. I hope this government will actually listen to what these candid truth-tellers to policy and power are saying about the grave risks of continuing down the agenda that this government is imposing, even though it's still fraught with a lack of certainty and clarity. None of us should be participating in this charade of pretending that it isn't.

To the point that my colleague made, Conservatives, of course, opposed the government's purchase, by which we mean taxpayers' purchase, of the Trans Mountain expansion. There was a business case. Kinder Morgan believed there was a business case. The former federal Conservative government approved the Trans Mountain expansion. When this government came to office, for political purposes and ideology only, they outright froze the regulatory process of all existing major resource and energy infrastructure and project applications.

That was the beginning of driving out investment, of killing 300,000 oil and gas workers' jobs and of starting what are the consequences of having a decade of these guys: Canadian investment soaring in the U.S. and foreign and American investment collapsing in Canada. Worst of all is Canadian investment collapsing in Canada. The collusion between big government and rent-seeking oligopolies always rips off taxpayers and always undermines the public interest. Our job here at this table is to protect it and to fight for it.

The truth is that there was a business case, because a private sector proponent wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions of dollars going through a regulatory process otherwise, after which it got an approval to go ahead and build its interprovincial pipeline, which was in federal jurisdiction. However, what happened was these guys came in, froze the regulatory process writ large, as they do all the time, delayed and delayed and then forced Kinder Morgan to go through another process that they made up on the fly. They didn't get Bill C-69 out the door until years later. Then they started applying new conditions, with a new review and an entirely new bureaucratic process, to this private sector proponent for a project that had already been approved. They gave it the green light.

Then what happened? Well, the court ruled almost exactly the same thing it had ruled with northern gateway: The Liberals failed in their indigenous consultation. As many governments have done, they failed to have a decision-maker at the table and couldn't demonstrate that there was viable two-way back-and-forth consultation and accommodations between the parties.

Let's just be clear here: None of that ever had to be delayed. The proponent already had the green light. The proponent already went through a rigorous scientific, evidence-based regulatory process by world-class experts, which is, by the way, Canada's track record and the reality of Canadian energy development in this world. They already got the green light. That's the problem. That is what started the flood and the cancellation.

The charade the Prime Minister perpetuates is that there isn't a business case for the Canadian oil sands, Canadian natural gas or exports of LNG. Clearly, the private sector proponents think there's a case and—news to the Prime Minister—so do allies around the world, which are begging for Canadian resources and technologies. That would actually, by the way, help lower global emissions.

Moving forward, what happened was that anti-energy politicians, public policy-makers and activists took on every possible tool they could to kill the approved pipeline, to be obstructionist, to stop it at every step and to keep it from getting built. What we found out in the process was that the federal government itself gave tax dollars to anti-energy protest groups to block TMX and shut it down. That's the truth.

There's this language that there isn't a business case and nobody wants to do this. No. This is the consequence of a government that has an agenda to expand and exert command and control of the economic agenda to pick winners and force losers. That's what always happens when politicians and bureaucrats get involved in this kind of thing. The losses and the consequences are a generational travesty for our country, a failure of Canada to stand with our allies, a failure after 10 years of securing Canadian energy self-sufficiency and energy security and a skyrocketing cost of living crisis that has been caused by this big-government, corporate-oligopoly agenda.

Conservatives said the federal government needed to declare the Trans Mountain expansion a general advantage of Canada. That would have allowed the federal government to assert federal jurisdiction, which that project was in with federal approval. We said that the government had to immediately and urgently get indigenous consultation right. They delayed it, by the way, for six months before they even started it again. That's linked to the unilateral veto of the northern gateway pipeline that the Prime Minister made, again for votes in B.C. and not based on science or evidence. He unilaterally reversed the approval of northern gateway, the only stand-alone, private sector-proposed export pipeline going to a deepwater port with a fast track to Asia, which obviously the former Conservative government had approved.

Northern gateway wasn't just abandoned. Prime Minister Trudeau had the option from that court decision, just as he took in TMX, to redo the indigenous consultation and get it right. We would have had a fully functioning, dedicated export pipeline operating. If that had happened efficiently, the private sector would have built it on their tab. That would have given generational and permanent benefits to Canada.

We said the government had to assert federal jurisdiction, enforce the rule of law and uphold the successive court injunctions, which were very reasonable. Conservatives believe every Canadian has a right to protest, to demonstrate, to speak up and to speak out on energy projects, of course. The court injunctions were very reasonable. They included staying 100 feet from the entrance and not blocking the workers, because it's a safety issue, yada yada yada.

However, we all watched in slow motion as these activists and politicians colluded to weaponize their bylaws, undermine the concept of federal jurisdiction and question the legitimacy of the approval of this crucial energy infrastructure. The government deliberately dithered and delayed, and the truth is, exactly as my colleague MP Patzer said, they've been talking out of both sides of their mouths the entire time. What a tangled web we surely do weave when we first deceive.

This is the worst part. We're all sitting around here like it's shocking that the tab for TMX is now $34 billion when the private sector had a plan to do it for $7.4 billion and it would have been operational in 2019. How has this happened? Well, this is what happens when governments get involved. How on earth is that even a question? This happened because the government would not back their own decision, caused delays, uncertainty and chaos and funded opponents to the project they approved while pretending they didn't.

This is a very deliberate agenda. It all comes from an anti-energy and anti-capitalist ideology. There is not a single reason why this government had to purchase TMX. All this government had to do was stand by the approval, assert federal jurisdiction and get the indigenous consultation right, which they should have remedied by doing it with northern gateway but lost that opportunity.

They should have been prepared to back Canada's reputation and our world-class regulatory expertise. They should have been prepared to back the private sector proponent after they gave them approval. They should have used every tool in their tool box to open a path for the private sector to pay the bills, to make their investment and to build a major project that would benefit all of Canada for generations to come, show Canada as reliable to its allies and get better prices for Canadians. These are all the ways that, as we all know—or maybe only Conservatives know—energy infrastructure and energy transportation are absolutely critical to the everyday standard of living and quality of life of Canadians and underpin the entire economy.

The regulatory and fiscal approach of this government is to force unrealistic targets and timelines on electricity generators, distributors and providers. They have promised and failed to implement the ITCs. They're still going back and forth on what the final version of the CERs might look like. There's the asinine exclusion of small and medium-sized Canadian builders, entrepreneurs and providers—even all of the insane exclusions that have anything to do with energy development and oil and gas—from any of the programs that they claim are all about innovation and technology. They're actually just about taxpayer dollars disappearing into the ether instead of enabling and opening the road for private sector proponents, experts, innovators, risk-takers and entrepreneurs to do the work that has built this country. This is after nine long, excruciating, painful, harmful years for the people I represent and for every Canadian whose livelihood, standard of living, and affordability depend on resource development in Canada.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I hope they will be able to come back. I hope they will give extensive written submissions. I hope we can pull this out of the fire for the best interests of all of Canada.

This is why I will be supporting our colleague Charlie's motion. I would just offer, if you would accept it, a friendly amendment to insert the words “that this study occur as soon as possible and supersede all other work of the committee”.

Charlie, thank you for finally telling the truth and admitting it. I know that you've always known it. It's these guys who are talking with a forked tongue.

The truth is that the emissions cap is designed to be a production cap, which is designed to put Canadian energy businesses and workers out of jobs. It is intentionally designed to kill their development and their businesses. It is intentionally designed to make unemployed the people I represent in northern Alberta, the people my colleague represents in Saskatchewan and the people my colleague from New Brunswick represents. Atlantic Canadians, as you know, have worked with Albertans throughout our country to build up our respective provinces to the benefit of this entire country.

If only this government would get out of the way, stop gatekeeping and let Canada take the leadership role in global critical minerals, LNG, oil of all kinds and natural gas that we should be taking in this world. I think it is more important than ever that we have this discussion about how to reverse this poisonous, wrong-headed, big-government, big-company, colluding agenda; get back to a place where our regulatory and fiscal regime attracts investment and enables private sector proponents to do the work on which they are experts; be realistic about timelines and targets; and deliver actual outcomes and objectives, not a bunch of rhetoric and virtue-signalling baloney.

Conservatives oppose the emissions cap because we know it is a cap on production and is designed to put oil and gas workers and businesses out of work.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

I have a point of order.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Thank you for telling the truth on that. We'll support your motion.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Mrs. Stubbs, hold for just a second. I think you're done, but we have a point of order.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

I'm trying to clarify something. She read what she was going to add to it, but I wasn't sure how much was being added out of that conversation and I have to decide whether I'm going to support all of it.

I've been pretty reasonable, but I heard that this study should occur as soon as possible—I was trying to write it down—and supersede all of the work of the committee. Is that the end of it, or did you have the other stuff as well, because—

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

I think Mr. Angus is asking for clarification on what your amendment was. We have other speakers on the list, so if you want to, can you provide that clarification?

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

Chair, thank you. I can hear him.

It's a fair point raised by my colleague, who's trying to intervene on what exactly I'm trying to accomplish here instead of my evidence-based tirade.

What I am suggesting to the member is for after the point about the emissions cap. We wonder if he would accept the insertion of the sentence “that this study occur as soon as possible and supersede all other work of the committee”.

We agree entirely that the objective, at least at the back end of this, must be to make taxpayers whole.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon, on a point of order.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

I believe the proper procedure would be for Mrs. Stubbs to move an amendment, and then we can vote on it. There is no such thing as a friendly amendment.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

Thank you for your point of order. For clarification, this is an amendment being proposed, because we don't have friendlies.

I think you have another point of order, Mr. Angus.

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Yes. It's on the amendment. I'm writing it down. It would say, “examine how increases in export capacity will impact a future cap of GHG emissions; that this study occur as soon as”—

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

The clerk has sent it out to everybody.

5 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Okay. I'm a happy man, then. Imagine me trying to do the work of the clerk. The clerk is so—

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal George Chahal

That's why we have the clerk. He sent it out to everybody so that it's clear. You can take a look at it on your devices.

I'll continue down the speaking order that's been established. I'm going to Ms. Dabrusin.