Natural Resources Committee on Sept. 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

The six minutes goes quickly.

We're going to go now to Madame Lapointe.

Madame Lapointe, you have six minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My questions are for Mr. McGowan.

Mr. McGowan, welcome back to the natural resources committee. I'm from Sudbury, and as a mining town, we see the energy transformation as an opportunity for Canada and for workers, but I recognize that, depending on the geographical location of an industry, this transformation can be seen as negative.

In April 2022, you appeared before this committee as a witness during our study on creating a fair and equitable Canadian energy transformation. At that time you said:

It's clear to us in the Alberta labour movement that the oil and gas sector in our province will never be the engine for job creation that it once was, and it's irresponsible for our leaders to wave their hands and suggest that we can go back to the way things were.... This is a structural transformation, so instead of talking about maintaining the status quo, we should be planning for a future that's going to look very different from our past.

My question to you today is this: In terms of America's Inflation Reduction Act, what do you think is needed from the federal government to plan for this future for our workers while being competitive with the IRA?

[Gil McGowan]

Thanks very much for the question.

As I said in my opening remarks today, I think what the IRA does for us is provide a model that can be followed and should be followed. The good news is that the federal government, as I've said, has received the memo. They've looked across the border and they see how well the IRA is working in terms of attracting and incenting investment, creating jobs and building industries.

There's a model there for us to follow. As I said in my opening remarks, and as our labour coalition has talked about in our reports, on getting to where the puck is, the answer is actually industrial policy in the public interest—the same kind of industrial policy that helped build our oil sands and petrochemical industries when Peter Lougheed and his PC government in the 1970s and 1980s realized that we were running out of conventional oil. He didn't wait for the market to decide. He didn't put his finger up to the wind to see which way the wind was blowing. He saw a crisis looming on the horizon, and he decided to use the levers of power to address it.

The answer is industrial policy. The best example is right across the border with the IRA. It's working. Doing nothing, frankly, is a dangerous option. As I said in my opening remarks, denial is not a plan. Delay will just put off all the investments that are necessary, and we may get left behind. That's our biggest fear.

I think the federal government has taken the necessary initial steps with the $80 billion they've earmarked in the budget. There's a framework for consultation and worker involvement in the sustainable jobs act, which is before Parliament right now. We are moving in the right direction, but because of our federal structure, what we're worried about is that the provinces may get in the way.

That's what we're seeing in Alberta. Just last month, our provincial government and our premier, Danielle Smith, introduced a surprise moratorium on renewable energy investment. It's that kind of thing that's going to trip us up. We're already losing jobs in oil and gas and have been for years. Even though production has been going up and investment is going up, employment is going down because companies are automating. They're automating our jobs away.

Our future lies in an IRA-style pivot towards a lower-carbon economy. That's where the jobs will be for all Canadian jurisdictions, including Alberta. That's where we need to go.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

The Inflation Reduction Act focuses on energy as a national security issue. I think it's not only prudent but imperative for Canada to do the same. How can we use this time of transition to make sure that we have the labour and the infrastructure available to do this, and how do you envision a pan-Canadian plan for this shift in work?

[Gil McGowan]

That's one of the reasons we, in our labour coalition, put together an Alberta blueprint, because given our federal structure, this will work only if the provinces get on board. I'm worried that this isn't happening, especially in the provinces where the heaviest lifting will have to be done. Those are the oil- and gas-producing provinces, like my home province of Alberta. We have 12% of the population. We produce 40% of the emissions. Oil and gas, which is the industry that will be most affected by this transition, is the biggest industry in the province.

As a country, we're not going to reach our goals, we're not going to be able to pivot and we may fall behind if we don't get our act together in places like Alberta. It's not going to happen unless our provincial governments get on board. Unfortunately, that's what I'm really worried about. I mentioned the moratorium that our provincial government placed on renewable energy investment, which shocked everyone and is counter to the best interests of our province and our economy. They've also refused to engage in the creation of a regional table with the federal government to talk about how to spend this money that the federal government earmarked in the last federal budget.

That's what we need. As a representative of hundreds of thousands of workers in Alberta, I'm actually despairing, because I think we're going to miss opportunities if we don't—I think one of the other guests said it—put politics aside. This should be a non-partisan issue. If we don't do that, we're going to miss opportunities—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're at the end of the time.

[Gil McGowan]

This is a political issue that needs to be addressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's the end of the six minutes.

I have a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We all hear things that we might not like or fully agree with in this room, but we have an obligation to respect the witnesses. That is part of our job here as parliamentarians. Heckling, even if they can't fully hear us because they're on Zoom, is disrespectful, and I would ask that we maintain decorum in this room.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I have Mr. Angus on a point of order.

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

We ask our witnesses here, whether we agree with them or not. Mr. McGowan represents thousands of workers who are on the front lines. To have him heckled through the entire process.... It was hard to hear because the Conservatives were ridiculing him. I think that's not acceptable.

We need to show respect, whether we agree with the positions or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Yes. I would ask everybody to listen respectfully as we engage in the conversations. Everybody has their chance.

We have a point of order from Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a point for the witnesses. Once you have your red card up, because you had it up for about a minute while the witness continued.... I think everyone should be aware of that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Like I said, I ask people to wind it up. I keep track of the time because everybody goes over. I cut it off at six minutes and 20 seconds, not a minute after. That's when I jumped in.

With that, Mr. Simard, we're going to jump to you. You have six minutes on the clock.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mousseau, if I try to summarize the answer you gave my colleague earlier, the best energy strategy to achieve net zero would be electrification. That would be the key.

[Normand Mousseau]

Yes. Electrification is the key because electricity is much more productive. An electric car will use three times less energy than a gas-powered car. An electric heat pump will use two, three or four times less energy than a natural gas heating system. There are other elements, as well, but that is indeed the key element.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Earlier, in your presentation, you said that structuring approaches had to be developed and pilot projects stopped. So how do we get to the deployment of electrical power? Do you think there is currently a strategy in Canada or even in Quebec that is leading us in that direction?

[Normand Mousseau]

There is a strategy. The federal government has tabled the Clean Electricity Regulations. Money is being spent to increase production, but not at the scale of what is needed to meet the needs associated with processing. Even in terms of just meeting the 2030 or 2035 targets for the number of electric vehicles, investment plans to upgrade grids and upgrade production are largely lacking across Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If you had to make a list of priorities in the short, medium and long term, what should the federal government do in terms of electrification?

[Normand Mousseau]

The federal government is limited, as this falls under a provincial mandate. However, the federal government could take action by encouraging innovation to be more productive in the deployment of infrastructure, such as the transmission and distribution infrastructure. It could certainly also support the construction of new generation plants in the country.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've already heard you say that we need to target greenhouse gas reductions before thinking about carbon capture and storage strategies. Is that right?

[Normand Mousseau]

You are correct because, even once everything has been decarbonized, there are a number of sectors that we do not know how to decarbonize today. So a lot of CO2 capture and storage will have to be done, and we're talking about hundreds of millions of tonnes a year. So if we choose not to decarbonize this or that by saying that we will rather capture everything, we won't be able to do so. So we absolutely have to focus on electrification and get as much carbon out of the economy as possible. Whatever is left will have to be captured, but it has to be reduced or we won't be able, technically, to build what we need to capture everything.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Do you think that current federal policies using carbon capture strategies, particularly those involving hydrogen, are efficient?

I am asking the question because I personally feel that far too many resources are being invested in hydrogen projects, among other things. I know the minister doesn't want to talk about colours, but aren't blue hydrogen projects, for example, too high of a technological risk?

[Normand Mousseau]

At the moment, those aren't being done.

I'm also co‑founder of the Transition Accelerator, which operates in western Canada. A hydrogen study centre is being piloted in Edmonton. In our view, we certainly need to test the technology and move forward with sufficient scale to see results. Today, we can't afford to reject potential solutions. Of course, as we move forward, we'll see what does and doesn't make sense. However, in the context of the west, relying on blue hydrogen is certainly defensible.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

When you say that we need to double electricity generation, it means that hydrogen could be one option among others.