Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2024

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes. To me that sounds like greenwashing, and I'll tell you why.

The word “petroleum” is being removed from the title of the act so it refers only to offshore energy. At the same time, it's still possible to issue permits for new oil and gas projects. In my opinion, there's something wrong with this picture.

Year after year, when I look at the reports being published, particularly by Oil Change International, I see that you're one of the lowest investors in clean energy in the G7. In contrast, you're one of the biggest investors in non-renewable energy, in oil and gas.

Isn't that a pretty significant contradiction?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The government has every confidence that the regulatory agencies will fulfill their current and future mandates. It's important that we rely on their expertise to manage renewable energy. We don't want to set up other regulatory agencies, which would cost money and take time, so we're using existing agencies and expertise.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Wilkinson, let's say we were having a beer by a fireplace and I asked you what this bill is all about. What would you say?

In my opinion, it's all about offshore drilling, much more so than clean energy sources like wind power.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The regulatory agencies are of course working on oil and gas projects, but this bill seeks to expand their mandate so that they also work on renewable energy.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Precisely, the bill specifies that a certain board's mandate is to facilitate oil and gas exploration and development. It's part of the mandates of—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

That's already part of its mandate.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, and it remains part of it in this bill. So I'm hard pressed to see how this bill can be seen as a step toward the energy transition. As far as I'm concerned, there's no energy transition in this bill.

I think wind is being used to doa bit of greenwashing. I don't want to use the word “hypocritical”, but let's say I find it a bit rich to want to remove the word “petroleum” from the bill, because it specifically applies to oil and gas projects when it comes to energy. I find that unfortunate. I feel it's greenwashing, in a way.

Do you agree with me?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

No, I don't agree.

We want to tap into the current offshore regulatory agency's expertise and add some elements related to renewable energy.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

In concrete terms, how many wind energy projects are currently under way?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

There are a few projects in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, but we need to get the regulatory framework in place to have offshore wind farms. That's exactly why we're here.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The previous version of the bill put the brakes on developing wind farm projects. That's what I understand from what you're telling me.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes. This measure is designed precisely to create an offshore wind industry.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

To your knowledge, have any wind energy project proponents come forward thus far?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, there have been many. The most advanced projects are probably EverWind and World Energy, but there are others in both provinces as well, of course.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If we set a ratio—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm sorry, Mr. Simard. Your time is up. You can follow up on that line of questioning in the next round.

Thank you, Minister, for your responses.

We'll now go to Mr. Angus from the New Democratic Party for six minutes.

Mr. Angus, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being back at your most welcome seat, where we love to have you. If you want to stay for a few extra hours, I'm sure we'd be more than willing to vote on it.

My concern is that over Christmas, we heard some really disturbing news. Canadian researchers tell us the Greenland ice shelves are melting at 30 million tonnes an hour. This is planetary breakdown in real time. We have parts of Alberta that are still burning from last summer—in January.

I hear positive talk from the government, but I don't see the action I'm seeing elsewhere in the world. China, in a single year, doubled its solar capacity. It increased its wind capacity by 66%. The Biden government brought in $132 billion in clean-tech projects in a year, yet our ITCs are still being talked about. We have Bill C-50 being monkeywrenched by the Conservatives. We also have Bill C-49, and they're sending a signal again on this.

My concern is that we have a window, and once that window passes, we're going to be left by the side of the road. With the Biden administration in the United States, one clean-tech offshore project in New Jersey will serve 700,000 homes, one project in Martha's Vineyard, 400,000 homes, and one in Rhode Island, 250,000 homes. These are being built right now, and we're talking about it. Why would investors come to Canada?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Investors would come to Canada for a whole range of different reasons, and investors are coming to Canada, if you saw the $12-billion Dow investment in the world's first net-zero petrochemical facility, and if you looked at the world's largest and lowest-emission potash mine in Saskatchewan or the battery manufacturing plants and electric vehicle manufacturing plants in Ontario and Quebec. However, I am totally in agreement with you that we need to move fast. The world is moving.

You are right that the most aggressive country on this is China. They've made a major bet on the energy transition. With the scale of what they've done with respect to electric vehicles, with respect to the deployment of renewable energy technology and with respect to critical minerals and supply chains, Canada and other western countries need to accelerate the work we are doing. We need to get those ITCs in place—and they will be coming forward very soon—in order to catalyze even more investment in Canada.

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

I look at Aberdeen, the land of my people. This is an oil town. It suffered from the decline. There were 15,000 new jobs last year alone in offshore wind, and over 42,000 have been created in Aberdeen. There are huge investments being made in Europe. There are huge investments being made in the United States.

How long do we keep hoping that they're going to pay attention to us if we're still sitting and talking about this legislation, still talking about Bill C-50 and still talking about ITCs? That investment is going to go elsewhere.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I think that's exactly right, and that's why getting this bill passed and implemented to have a regulatory structure in place such that people do have certainty around the regulatory regime is critically important. The kinds of delays we have seen in this committee have not been helpful to the economic competitiveness of Canada, and we need to move forward expeditiously.

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

One thing that's really striking is that the Biden administration has made dealing with the climate crisis and sustainability the number one job, yet recently the President decided to put a moratorium on LNG exports because of serious concerns over methane and other carbon bomb damage that show LNG is not clean energy. He said that the “pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”

Is the Liberal government willing to deal with a moratorium on LNG given the Biden administration is saying that this is an existential climate threat?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Regarding the Americans, it's not a moratorium on exports. It's a moratorium on new projects as they look to incorporate climate more strongly into their regulatory approval process.

Canada started down that path years ago. Our 75% methane reduction requirements and the requirement for “best-in-class”, which means you need to liquefy using electricity, are exactly what the Americans are looking at now, and they have not done it. We welcome the Americans joining Canada in focusing on how we ensure the decarbonization of that sector.

I was meeting with Premier Eby today. We had exactly that conversation. That's exactly his view as well.

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

The issue on methane is that methane is a planet killer. It's 80 times worse than CO2 emissions, yet we find that, again, emissions are 50% higher than industry has admitted. We simply cannot trust Suncor to tell anybody the truth. We cannot trust the Alberta Energy Regulator, which is an extension of Suncor, to tell the truth.

Emissions are 50% higher. LNG is a major source. You say we have a plan on methane, but how do we tell the public we have a plan on dealing with methane when what we're getting in terms of how much is being emitted by industry is false?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

That's a good question. I think the reductions we have seen with respect to methane regulations are real reductions, but what you're saying is that the absolute starting point may be different.

I think a lot of data out there would suggest that methane emissions are higher than we previously thought. That is why we have announced the methane centre of excellence, a body that is going to look at this. It will be independent of the industry. It will ensure that we have in place the appropriate methodology to measure.

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

Okay, but to finish here, I was just saying that methane is a planet killer, so we know it's much higher and we can't trust industry. To me, setting up some kind of body to look at it isn't good enough. We have to say what the real numbers are and say this is what industry has to start dropping.