Environment Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Again, thank you to the witnesses.

I want to be clear. You spoke about a lot of good, while answering the questions opposite, regarding how you have helped indigenous communities near where you operate. I noticed that, even though this meeting is not about investment in indigenous communities, you had all of those numbers. However, you didn't have any numbers on your investments in net zero. As a very profitable sector of our economy, undoubtedly, you've done a lot of good, and I think Canadians thank you. Many jobs have been created. There's been much good done, and you've helped your communities.

However, that's not what we're questioning. It's the fact that, for 50 years, we've known the product you produce is contributing to the climate crisis. Given that you've done a lot of good, it seems there's now a lot of clarification around what should be done and when it should be done. We're waiting for a framework. You're all able to begin investing much more in emissions reduction. You collectively make up 31% of emissions in Canada, but you're less than 5% of the GDP. Most of the money goes outside of this country. We have our commitments as a country, and you are part of that economy. What are you going to do?

I would like, again, to hear from you that you will table the plans you and your boards have approved to get to net zero, including current and planned investments going forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Was that a question or just to reiterate?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I'd like to hear from—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I understand.

It's also reiterating the request to send follow-up documentation that answers Ms. Taylor Roy's question. Who would like to take a stab at that question?

[Brad Corson]

Mr. Chair, I would comment that we have already provided our “Advancing Climate Solutions” report to the entire committee. If you study that report, it lays out a clear road map of the investments we have made and that we have planned.

As an example of ones we have made, we are building, right now, Canada's largest renewable diesel facility, which will result in a significant reduction in scope 3 emissions. I also commented how we just started up and announced first production at a new operation at Cold Lake that uses the latest technology employing solvents to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of those barrels by 40%. I use this to illustrate two examples of many that are in our road map.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I appreciate the examples. However, what I asked for were detailed plans to get to net zero and meet your goals of 2030 and 2050, not two examples.

Your emissions are still going up. We'd like to see the plans, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Your time is up, Ms. Taylor Roy.

That being said, we would ask witnesses to provide the committee, in writing, with information detailing their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We have to stop here.

Witnesses, thank you for being with us for this discussion, which was quite robust at times. I think you have made us more knowledgeable on this issue. So thank you very much and good evening to you. We will see one another again at another time.

Colleagues, I have a couple of housekeeping things to take care of.

We adopted Mr. Mazier's motion to have a meeting on June 11 on net zero—a two-hour meeting with one hour in camera. We agreed that certain confidential documents would be made available for consultation at a location to be determined. It looks like it's going to be hard to amass all of those documents by the 11th, so what is being proposed—I discussed this with Mr. Mazier—is that we do that meeting not on the 11th but on the 18th. We're delaying a week to make sure we have all the documents.

I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that. It means a two-hour meeting on the 11th and a four-hour meeting on the 18th, rather than a four-hour meeting on the 11th and a two-hour meeting on the 18th.

We would just be delaying it by a week; that's all.

Are we in agreement?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes, but just for clarification, we have...with a guarantee. The indication is that we want to make sure we have this meeting before we take off for the summer, so the 18th is the “do or die” date. Do we have the resources?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We're working on it. I'm hopeful that we do.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

The understanding we have, so everybody knows and is on the same page, is that, if we do have votes that day, the meeting will start at four o'clock or later. If we have to go through votes, we can't say, “Oh, we're voting all through this.” Isn't that right?

It's going to the greatest possible extent to make sure this meeting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The aim is to resolve the matter on June 18, even if we're starting a little late. However, we'll have to check with the House administration to see if any resources will be available.

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's a good idea. One thing we need to address, now that it's on the same day, is the plan, then, to view documents for two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

My understanding of why it's being delayed to the 18th is that the motion said the documents should be available three days before. Is that what it was? Yes. We've been told, or I've been told, that by making it the 18th, we can make the documents available.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

I understand that. That wasn't my question, though. There was discussion the last time about whether or not we want to view the documents before or after we have witnesses. Does this mean that we will be viewing documents in the first two hours of the meeting and then having our regularly scheduled meeting afterwards? That would flip the two, the viewing and the meeting, around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

My understanding is that we will have one hour with the witnesses and then one hour in camera with the documents. Is that correct?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes, and meanwhile we have two days—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Meanwhile, there are two days to consider the documents before the meeting.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

It's three days before the meeting even happens. We have access to the documents three days before the actual meeting.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

We're going to get access to the documents on the 18th. Is that what this is saying?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No. It's earlier, three days before.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Oh, do you mean the 15th?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

If we want.... You can consult—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay. The 11th wasn't an option, so now we're suggesting that we can have the documents available on the 14th or the 15th, or something like that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, it's something like that—the 13th or 14th.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Okay. Then why would we have a four-hour meeting on the 18th if we're going to be viewing documents?