Evidence of meeting #8 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transition.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Student Energy
What we see from our research is that young people are really concerned about all pollution. It's not just CO2 but also methane and anything else. We should definitely have a sector-by-sector approach.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Do you think, for instance, the cement industry in Quebec should have a sector emissions cap?
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Student Energy
I think that all emitting sectors in the heavy industry in Canada need to basically account for their emissions and look towards creating a net-zero economy.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Would you prefer to have a global cap or a sector-by-sector cap?
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Student Energy
I don't have a strong opinion on that based on our research, but what I do know is that young people are very determined to get to net zero, and I know that many other witnesses at this committee have made recommendations based on their own research there.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Fantastic.
To return to Mark Podlasly, what are your thoughts on having a sector-by-sector emissions cap?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Economic Policy and Initiatives, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
The coalition doesn't take an approach to whether it should be sector by sector. We do know that there are some sectors that emit quite a bit, but we are very focused on ensuring that indigenous people are not harmed in the shift that will happen to those industries as they move towards a carbon-restrained future.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Do you think a cap would change economic opportunities for indigenous communities, specifically in northern regions or in energy-producing regions in terms of their economic development?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Economic Policy and Initiatives, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
Anything that we're approaching for an energy net zero future is going to require adaptive learning for all sectors to figure out what is the opportunity that comes from this.
You're starting to see that in Alberta in places where carbon pipelines are starting to be proposed. You're starting to see alternative energy solutions and sequestration technologies. It's not just one thing; it's many things. From an indigenous perspective, as long as indigenous people are included in the same opportunities as other Canadians have, it's a great thing.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Wonderful.
Do you know if there's any legal work that's been done on whether the federal government has the authority to impose an emissions cap on first nations lands?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Economic Policy and Initiatives, First Nations Major Projects Coalition
We have not done research about that, and it's not something that we have explored extensively.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I also want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today.
I'm going to start off with Mr. McGowan.
You talked a lot about the importance of the just transition. From your experience, what do you think the role of the federal government should be in this just transition? Also what's the role of the province—in your case and my case, the province of Alberta—and municipalities?
5:05 p.m.
President, Alberta Federation of Labour
We feel strongly that it needs to be a shared responsibility, especially when we're talking about setting national goals for emissions reduction. If the federal government is introducing legislation that will have an impact on our jobs and our communities in Alberta, then they have a responsibility to help us deal with the fallout.
As an example, when I was the chair of the Coal Transition Coalition and we were in the process of approaching the provincial government at that time for just transition policies, we went out of our way to not only work with the province but also with employers and municipalities, because when it comes to the adjustment needs of workers who might be displaced as a result of policy, you're not just talking about individual workers. You're talking about their families and their communities.
In many cases, the communities that are going to be impacted most are the smallest ones that depend most on these industries. We need the municipalities at the table. We need employers, workers and the federal government. It needs to be a shared responsibility.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
You also talk about a transfer to energy provinces that's dedicated. In Alberta, we've seen the current provincial government give a billion dollars plus to a private corporation.
Do you believe that transfers should be given without a plan in place? What does that industrial policy that you talked about earlier look like? What lessons have you learned from your previous experience with the transition from coal in Alberta that we can learn from? What measures can we put in place in future policy?
5:05 p.m.
President, Alberta Federation of Labour
Those are great questions.
In terms of a plan, it's imperative. I talked about the distinction between just transition for worker adjustment and just transition for economic transformation. They both need plans. That's especially true if we're talking about transforming the economy to generate economic activity to replace oil.... Because oil and gas is just not going to be the engine for economic activity and job creation that it once was, if we're trying to replace it on a scale like we're talking about in Alberta, we need an industrial strategy to shift.
It's happening fast. You can't rely on the markets to sort it out because, as I said at the outset, I'm afraid that without government direction, and without a plan from the top where government sets the direction in co-operation with workers and employers, you're going to end up with the situation like they have in the American Midwest, where manufacturing collapsed and nothing came in to replace it.
That's what we're trying to avoid in Alberta. So we need a vision and a plan that have to be facilitated at both the provincial and the federal levels, but in order to make this huge shift—and in a province like Alberta it would be a very huge shift—and to do it quickly because this is happening very quickly, we need money too. That's why we're talking about a very significant new stream of funding coming from the federal government in the form of a just transition transfer.
I know there's limited time here, so in terms of lessons, I'll just mention one. There was money coming from the province for just transition in Alberta, but there was a pot of money for employers to keep the lights on in the transition to natural gas from coal, and there was a pot for workers and communities. That pot of money that went to the big power companies was given without any strings attached, and there was a huge missed opportunity to get things to support workers and communities in the transition by basically requiring the employer to help with the transition. If money's going to flow, it needs to be attached to a plan, and there have to be strings attached that will facilitate a successful transition both for workers—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Do you believe that natural gas has a role to play in the transition as we move forward to a cleaner future?
February 16th, 2022 / 5:10 p.m.
President, Alberta Federation of Labour
The short answer is yes. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but it is less emissions intensive. There is a role to play, for example, in using natural gas as a feedstock for petrochemicals.
That could be part of the transition, but I think the focus should be on what I call “safe bet” transition technology, with things that are already invented, like solar, wind, batteries, EVs and methane reduction. This is proven technology that's low-hanging fruit. If we pile into that instead of more expensive, unproven technologies—even like carbon capture and sequestration—it would be a better use of investment.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
We need to stop there.
We're now going to Monsieur Simard, who will have two and a half minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have another question for Mr. Detuncq. Perhaps Ms. Carter could then add her comments.
Mr. Detuncq, I'm going to give you some numbers. I don't know if you are aware, but during the COVID‑19 pandemic, the federal government has invested $30.9 billion just to support the oil and gas sectors. According to Oil Change International, $14 billion per year goes to these sectors through Export Development Canada. Trying to include all subsidies to fossil fuel sectors, Oil Change International's leaders determined that the amount for 2018 was $78 billion.
Minister Guilbeault has said that he will end inefficient subsidies to the oil and gas sectors by 2023. My question relates to the concept you mentioned earlier, the energy return on investment.
If we end inefficient subsidies and we need subsidies to be efficient, can carbon capture strategies be considered efficient subsidies?
Would the subsidies the federal government could provide to blue hydrogen-related sectors be considered efficient subsidies?
5:10 p.m.
Retired Professor, École Polytechnique de Montréal, As an Individual
Based on the reading I've done, I would tell you that blue hydrogen isn't something we can bank on. We would have to look at green hydrogen. Western Canada has great potential, for both wind and solar power. Using these renewables, we could produce hydrogen to be used locally in Canada or exported. This would be the most promising avenue.
We mustn't forget that producing hydrogen from methane or oil sands yields a very low energy return on investment. In contrast, producing energy from high-power wind installations currently yields an EROI of 70 to 1. In other words, using one unit of energy yields an energy gain of 70 kilowatts, a much more attractive return. We should be focusing on these streams instead.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Detuncq, but I'd like Ms. Carter to speak briefly.
5:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
Thank you very much for that question.
I just wanted to say a couple of things about CCUS because I think this is urgent and it's important.
I was one of the professors and academics who drafted that letter that was signed by 400 scientists and academics and presented to Minister Freeland in expressing concern about new funds, a new tax break, for CCUS. The reason we wrote that letter and drew attention to it is that we're concerned that CCUS is mostly being used for increased oil production. Eighty per cent of captured carbon is used for enhanced oil recovery, so it's about it being injected into underground oil reserves to boost up that production.
We need to see what the CCUS really is. It's mostly about boosting oil production. It's not about a climate solution. As I think you've all pointed out, these projects are extremely costly for the public, and given where we are in the climate crisis, we need all of those funds now for the transition, for the things that Mr. McGowan is pointing towards: proven cost-effective solutions that we know of right now, such as renewable energy, electrification and energy efficiency. CCUS is a diversion.