Questions and responses 45th Parliament, 1st session May 26, 2025, to present

With regard to submissions received by the Major Projects Office at the email address WCOPComment-CommentaireOCO@mpo-bgp.gc.ca in response to an official notice published in the Canada Gazette on August 1, 2026, opening a public comment period on the decision about whether to list the oil pipeline as a national interest project under the Building Canada Act: (a) how many submissions did the office receive from Quebec; (b) how many of the submissions received by the office from Quebec opposed adding the West Coast Oil Pipeline to the list of projects of national interest; (c) how many submissions did the office receive in total; (d) has the administration produced a report on this public consultation; and (e) if the answer to (d) is affirmative, what are the findings of that report, and can the report be made public?

With regard to the submissions received by the Major Projects Office at the email address WCOPComment-CommentaireOCO@mpo-bgp.gc.ca in response to the publication of an official notice on August 1, 2026, in the Canada Gazette opening a public comment period regarding the decision whether to list the oil pipeline as a project of national interest under the Building Canada Act: (a) how many submissions did the office receive in support of listing the West Coast Oil Pipeline as a project of national interest; (b) how many submissions did the office receive opposing the listing of the West Coast Oil Pipeline as a project of national interest; and (c) can the submissions received between August 1, 2026, and September 18, 2026, be made available in their entirety to members upon request?

With regard to the application for a deep-sea mining permit filed by The Metals Company under the U.S. “Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act” and Canada’s obligations under articles 137 through 139 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: (a) has there been, is there currently, or will there be an investigation into the actions of The Metals Company and the obligations that Canada must fulfill under international law; (b) has the Department of Justice Canada, Global Affairs Canada's legal services or any other government agency conducted a review of Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to the actions of The Metals Company, the illegality of unilateral mining operations or the measures that Canada should take in response; (c) has the government considered taking measures to ensure that its nationals and companies do not violate international law, and, if so, what measures are being considered; (d) will the government proceed with the implementation of legislation related to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to address the existing legal gaps regarding the proper implementation of the convention and Canada’s compliance with its obligations under the convention, and, if not, why not; (e) has the government (i) been in contact with representatives of The Metals Company between 2020 and 2026, (ii) received prior knowledge of The Metals Company’s filing of these applications for mining permits in international waters under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, (iii) considered providing financial or regulatory support to The Metals Company; (f) have there been internal government deliberations, contrary to Canada’s official position in support of a moratorium on deep-seabed mining, concerning the potential financial benefits of such mining for Canada; and (g) have there been any communications between representatives of the government, including Global Affairs Canada, and the former Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority, Michael Lodge, regarding unilateral mining or applications for mining permits in international waters filed by The Metals Company under the “Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act”?

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions and the information provided in Table 2-13, “Trends in GHG Emissions by Canadian Economic Sector,” in Environment and Climate Change Canada’s National Inventory Report 1990-2023: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada: (a) why are emissions from upgrading now lower than those from in situ extraction as a proportion of total oil sands emissions; (b) what is the source of the reductions in emissions from upgrading, identifying, among other things, the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the export of non-upgraded oil and those resulting from improved environmental performance in upgrading; (c) what explains the fact that in 2005, the proportion of greenhouse gases from oil sands attributable to upgrading was more than 45% and today it is more than 26%; (d) what quantity of oil sands, in (i) number of barrels per day, (ii) cubic metres for the years and proportion, (iii) percentage of crude oil, is upgraded in Canada for each year from 1990 to 2023; (e) what are the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands associated with the environmental performance of bitumen upgrading operations in Canada for the years 1990 to 2023; and (f) what are the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands associated with the reduction in bitumen upgrading operations in Canada for the years 1990 to 2023?

With regard to the emissions from upgrading oil from the oil sands and the government’s response to Question Q-751 on the Order Paper: (a) what is the breakdown of emissions intensity (kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per barrel) in the oil sands sector attributable to (i) mining, (ii) in situ production (primary and thermal extraction), (iii) upgrading operations, for each year from 1990 to 2023; (b) what explains the fluctuation in the share of upgrading operations in (i) the emissions intensity of the oil sands sector, (ii) total oil sands emissions; (c) does the government have statistics on greenhouse gas emissions and emissions intensity from oil sands if the bitumen produced (i) in 2005, (ii) today, was entirely upgraded in Canada, and, if so, what are they; (d) does the government have statistics on greenhouse gas emissions and emissions intensity from oil sands in 2023 if the bitumen produced in 2023 was upgraded in the same proportion as in 2005, and, if so, what are they; (e) what reductions in greenhouse gas emissions intensity per barrel of oil from the oil sands are associated with bitumen upgrading operations in Canada for the years 1990 to 2023; and (f) for each year from 1990 to 2023, what proportion of oil exports from the oil sands, in (i) number of barrels per day, (ii) cubic metres, is unprocessed bitumen (not upgraded in Canada), and what proportion of these exports is bitumen upgraded in Canada?

With regard to Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory: (a) why are emissions from logging and end‑of‑life forest products not included in Canada’s official total greenhouse gas emissions, but instead presented for information only, even though they represent a major flow of carbon into the atmosphere; (b) why does the government not have a specific emissions reduction target for the forestry sector, unlike other industrial sectors, as recommended by several experts and advisory committees; and (c) why does Canada credit, in the greenhouse gas inventory, carbon removals from mature forests where industry has never been active, while excluding greenhouse gas emissions from natural disturbances such as fires?

With regard to crude bitumen without the additional processing step of upgrading to synthetic crude oil in Canada and greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands: (a) what is the increase in exports of unprocessed crude bitumen without the additional processing step of upgrading to synthetic crude oil (i) from 2022 to 2023, (ii) from 2013 to 2023, (iii) from 2005 to 2023, (iv) from 1990 to 2023, (v) as a percentage of previous years, (vi) in number of barrels, (vii) in cubic metres; (b) what are the greenhouse gas emissions emitted abroad and attributable to the additional processing step of upgrading this crude bitumen exported by Canada into synthetic crude oil (i) in terms of kg CO² equivalent per barrel, (ii) in terms of tonnes CO² equivalent, (iii) from 1990 to 2023, (iv) from 2005 to 2023, (v) from 2022 to 2023; (c) what is the reduction in emissions per barrel of oil from oil sands due to the increase in exports of unprocessed crude bitumen from Canada, in other words, processed abroad (i) as a percentage of the total observed reduction in emissions per barrel, (ii) in terms of kg CO² equivalent per barrel, (iii) from 1990 to 2023, (iv) from 2005 to 2023, (v) from 2022 to 2023; (d) what are the emissions per barrel of oil from Canadian oil sands in kg CO² equivalent for each year from 1990 to 2023; (e) what would be the emissions per barrel of oil from oil sands in kg CO² equivalent if Environment and Climate Change Canada included greenhouse gases emitted abroad during the additional processing stage of upgrading to synthetic crude oil for each of the years from 1990 to 2023; (f) what would be the reduction in emissions per barrel of oil from Canadian oil sands if Environment and Climate Change Canada included greenhouse gases emitted abroad during the additional processing step of upgrading to synthetic crude oil (i) as a percentage, (ii) as a quantity in kg CO² equivalent, (iii) from 1990 to 2023, (iv) from 2005 to 2023, (v) from 2022 to 2023; and (g) what proportion of the reduction in emissions per barrel in the oil sands is attributable to emissions that have been captured and transported to an underground storage site such as the Scotford upgrading facility (i) as a percentage, (ii) in kg CO² equivalent per barrel, (iii) between 1990 and 2023, (iv) between 2005 and 2023?

With regard to the Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Alberta dated November 27, 2025, in which the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta announced their goal of increasing oil and gas production in Alberta: (a) what are, in quantitative terms, Canada's goals in terms of exports and national security; (b) for oil, natural gas, and liquefied natural gas, and for each year from 2026 to 2045, what are the (i) current projections for production and exports, (ii) Canada's export and national security objectives; (c) what is the impact of this commitment on greenhouse gas emissions projections modelling, for each emissions projection scenario and for all milestone years from 2030 to 2050; d) for any documentation supporting the Memorandum of Understanding, including scientific advice, briefing notes, studies and briefs used by or provided to the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the Department of Finance Canada, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister's Office, what are the details, including (i) the date, (ii) the sender, (iii) the type of document, (iv) the title of the document, (v) a summary of the content of the message?

With regard to the November 27, 2025, Canada–Alberta Memorandum of Understanding and the government’s commitment to suspend the Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta: (a) what is the impact of not enforcing the Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta, as compared to the version of the regulations in force in November 2025, on the modelling of greenhouse gas emissions projections for Alberta and for Canada as a whole, for each emissions projection scenario and for all milestone years from 2026 to 2050; and (b) for all documentation related to this commitment, including scientific advice, briefing notes, studies and briefs used by or provided to the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the Department of Finance Canada, the Cabinet and the Office of the Prime Minister, what are the details, including (i) the date, (ii) the sender, (iii) the type of document, (iv) the title of the document, (v) a summary of the content of the message?

With regard to the near surface disposal facility at Chalk River: (a) what options are there besides centralization at Chalk River for storing radioactive waste until the deep geologic repository is ready to accept spent nuclear fuel; (b) what criteria did the government use in selecting Chalk River for this facility; (c) what studies were conducted to reach this decision; (d) what comparative studies were conducted, particularly with regard to site safety, environmental impacts, transportation costs, storage costs, etc.; and (e) what are the additional costs of this double transportation?

With regard to activities related to the transfer of used nuclear fuel from Gentilly 1, in Bécancour, Quebec, to the facilities in Chalk River, Ontario: (a) what are the technical and financial details of all activities associated with the transfer, including the equipment used, the facilities in place in Chalk River to accommodate the waste, as well as the procedures followed; (b) what is the total and itemized cost of each of the distinct phases of the operation; (c) what are the explicit authorizations (or permits) requested and obtained, their scope and the conditions attached to these authorizations; (d) what are the details of the consultations conducted with the parties concerned, including the stakeholders, the input received, and the participation, or lack thereof, of provincial and municipal authorities in Quebec and Ontario; (e) how were the shipments carried out and what were the routes taken and municipalities crossed; (f) what safety measures were implemented to ensure transportation security and the protection of the public; (g) what is the quantity and nature of additional radioactive waste generated, particularly in the form of contaminated equipment, including shipping and storage containers; and (h) what measures are planned for the management and disposal of the older concrete canisters at Gentilly 1, which were used for many decades to store spent fuel?