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

With regard to the government’s work related to the Port of Churchill, the Hudson Bay Railway, and the broader “Churchill Plus” project, including statements by the Premier of Manitoba that the federal government wants liquefied natural gas flowing from Churchill by 2030 and that federal support for the project could be affected if that timeline is not met: (a) has the government established, formally or informally, a target, objective, deadline, benchmark, condition, or expectation that liquefied natural gas exports from Churchill begin by 2030, and, if so, (i) on what date was that target, condition, or expectation first adopted, (ii) by whom was it adopted, (iii) in what document, presentation, memorandum, briefing note, mandate letter, decision record, meeting record, email, text message, or other communication is it recorded, (iv) what exactly is the target, condition, or expectation; (b) did the Prime Minister, any minister, any exempt staff, the Major Projects Office, the Privy Council Office, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, Prairies Economic Development Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, or any other federal official communicate to the Government of Manitoba, Arctic Gateway Group, the Manitoba Crown Indigenous Corporation, or any other party that federal support for Churchill Plus, the Port of Churchill, an energy corridor, or related infrastructure could be reduced, delayed, withheld, reconsidered, or taken off the table if liquefied natural gas is not flowing from Churchill by 2030, and, if so, what are the details, including, (i) who made the communication, (ii) to whom was it made, (iii) on what date, (iv) in what form, including verbal discussion, meeting, email, text message, briefing, or correspondence, (v) what are the details of each communication; (c) what federal departments, agencies, Crown corporations, task forces, secretariats, or project offices are currently involved in planning, assessing, funding, coordinating, regulating, or otherwise advancing any liquefied natural gas export ambition through Churchill, and what is the role of each; (d) has the government defined what liquefied natural gas through Churchill would require in practical terms, and, if so, what components has it identified as necessary, including, but not limited to, (i) liquefaction facilities, (ii) liquefied natural gas storage and loading facilities, (iii) port upgrades, (iv) rail upgrades, (v) a pipeline, gathering, transmission, or other energy corridor, (vi) expanded marine and icebreaking capacity, (vii) year round or extended season shipping capability, (viii) any related power, road, airport, logistics, or defence infrastructure; (e) what studies, analyses, market assessments, engineering studies, shipping studies, commercial assessments, demand forecasts, financial models, risk assessments, or feasibility studies has the government commissioned, received, funded, or reviewed since January 1, 2024, related specifically to liquefied natural gas exports through Churchill, and what is the title, author, date, cost, and status of each; (f) what federal assessment, permitting, regulatory, environmental, marine safety, shipping safety, rail safety, and Indigenous consultation requirements would apply specifically to liquefied natural gas handling, storage, liquefaction, loading, transport, or export facilities associated with Churchill, and what steps has the government already taken to identify, coordinate, streamline, substitute, waive, or sequence those requirements; (g) what estimate does the government currently use for the capital cost, operating cost, financing structure, and total public funding requirement associated specifically with enabling liquefied natural gas exports through Churchill, including any related rail, port, pipeline, storage, marine, or icebreaking infrastructure, and how much of each amount is expected to come from federal, provincial, Indigenous, municipal, and private sector sources; (h) what private sector entities has the government identified as potential investors, proponents, operators, shippers, infrastructure partners, or anchor customers for any liquefied natural gas project through Churchill, and what commitments, expressions of interest, non disclosure agreements, memoranda of understanding, or term sheets, if any, have been received; (i) what role, if any, does the government see liquefied natural gas exports through Churchill playing in Arctic sovereignty, national defence, continental security, trade diversification, or northern economic development, and what documents set out that role; and (j) with respect to the federal announcement of $175 million over five years for the Hudson Bay Railway and pre-development activities at the Port of Churchill, including $125 million through Transport Canada’s Remote Passenger Rail Program and $50 million through Prairies Economic Development Canada, (i) what portion of that funding, if any, is intended or expected to support the feasibility, enabling conditions, or future implementation of liquefied natural gas exports through Churchill, (ii) what specific milestones or deliverables related to liquefied natural gas, if any, are attached to those funds, (iii) what internal analyses or briefing materials connect that funding to a 2030 liquefied natural gas objective or expectation?

With regard to the impact of the government's emissions cap on liquefied natural gas projects in Canada: (a) will LNG Canada Phase 2 be subject to the government's emissions cap; and (b) what assessments has the government conducted on the impact of the emissions cap on the viability of (i) LNG Canada Phase 2, (ii) other liquefied natural gas projects in Canada, and what was the result of each such assessment?

With regard to the LNG Canada Phase 2 project: (a) what are the projections of how many tonnes of greenhouse gases the project will emit (i) in Canada, (ii) internationally, each year and cumulatively over the life of the project, from the construction stage to the project’s end of life; (b) for all the government’s internal documentation assessing the impact of the LNG Canada Phase 2 project on greenhouse gas emissions, the achievement of Canada’s 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target, public health, the economy, including economic risks, gas prices and energy costs (for example, electricity costs, transportation costs) for Canadian consumers, gas production and the required capacity of gas transportation infrastructure to this terminal, 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 message’s content; and (c) what are the details of the national security review of investments by the project partners, Shell, Petronas, PetroChina, Mitsubishi Corporation and Korea Gas Corporation, including, (i) the date, (ii) the sender, (iii) the type of document, (iv) the title of the document, (v) a summary of the message’s content?

With regard to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue’s remarks in the September 11, 2025, announcement of the Major Projects Office that the “government is committed to making Canada into a clean and conventional energy superpower”, the aim of the Major Projects Office to “work to fast-track nation-building projects by streamlining regulatory assessment and approvals and helping to structure financing”, and the contribution of natural gas to Canada’s conventional energy capacity: (a) what role does the Minister of Finance and National Revenue consider the export of liquefied natural gas to play in making Canada a conventional energy superpower; (b) what criteria did the government use in 2022 to determine that there was not a business case for exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada’s east coast; (c) what criteria does the government currently use in determining whether a business case exists for exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada’s east coast; (d) between 2016 and 2026, how many evaluations did the government perform of the business case for exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada’s east coast and when did it perform such evaluations; and (e) of the evaluations in (d), how many indicated that the provisions and process of the Impact Assessment Act had a deleterious effect on the business case for exporting liquefied natural gas from Canada’s east coast and on which dates did such evaluations report their results?

With regard to the Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas project on the coast of British Columbia: (a) what are the projections, in tonnes, of greenhouse gas emissions from the project (i) in Canada, annually and cumulatively over the life of the project, from the construction phase to the end of the project's life, (ii) internationally, annually and cumulatively over the life of the project, from the construction phase to the end of the project's life; (b) for all internal government documentation assessing the impact of the Ksi Lisims project on (i) the project's greenhouse gas emissions, (ii) Canada's 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target, (iii) public health, (iv) the economy, including economic risks, gas prices and energy costs (for example, electricity costs and transportation costs) for Canadian consumers, (v) gas production and the necessary capacity of gas transportation infrastructure to this terminal, what are the details, including the date, the sender, the type of document, the title of the document, a summary of the content of the message; (c) what are the details of the national security review of the investments of Western LNG, partners in the Ksi Lisims project, 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; and (d) for any documentation assessing the interests of the United-States in Western LNG, a partner in the Ksi Lisims project, 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 message's content?