Environment Committee on March 29th, 2022

[Mark Agnew]

Thank you for the question.

In no particular order, a couple of things come to mind.

The first is certainly having a clear signal from government of the legitimate and important role that the oil, gas and energy sector plays in the Canadian economy. As the honourable member will know, for the folks over in Alberta, it's where a lot the extraction takes place, but there's a whole supply chain across the country that benefits from and relies upon this. Certainly, the industry pays taxes, and those taxes help fund roads, hospitals, national defence and social programs. I think that's an important recognition to have that is important from the top.

The other element of it, too, is, how we advance the conversation globally. We like to talk a lot about Canada's role on the world stage. Energy is an area where Canada can assert some influence, and it's a tool. We're looking at how Canada makes itself relevant in a very realpolitik way. Again, I think the energy sector is something that we shouldn't be shy in talking about.

This isn't about just the current context of what's going on with the terrible war in Ukraine. This is something that we should have been doing well before the conflict started.

Those would be two measures I would put forward for the committee's consideration.

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

Thank you very much.

Perhaps I'll ask Mr. Goodman a somewhat similar question in talking about supply chains.

For example, I am from Alberta, and just so we can put things in perspective, I was speaking with Dow Chemical as they were talking about their initiatives for net zero and how they were going to go through the plastics production and be able to come out with straight hydrogen at the end so that it becomes the byproduct. Then we put money, as Alberta has done, into investments that make a difference, and we would be able to really see things that we could be selling all around the world and so on.

One of the things that Dow Chemical indicated is that, if we want to talk about some of these other industries that are so important to people, it takes 17 tons of material to build a windmill. Seven tons of that is plastic, and you don't get that from anywhere else other than our oil and gas industry. We have to get that message around.

I know that my time is going to be short here.

Mr. Goodman, how are you going to ensure that this message gets out to people?

[Tristan Goodman]

I think that's key. The reality is that what we're looking for here across all of these sectors is that you need to remain competitive. It helps workers, the oil and gas business and the renewable businesses.

You need predictable and stable policy that is actually equitable and focused on all factors. It's not just one lens. The key is that you need investor confidence. Without investor confidence, you're not going to have that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

Mr. Duguid, you have five minutes please.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for their excellent testimony.

Mr. Chair, as my colleagues are probably aware, the emissions reduction plan that will get us to 2030 and 2050 is being released as we speak by the Prime Minister in Vancouver. Some of my colleagues may have seen an op-ed by ministers Guilbeault and Wilkinson, saying that we need to use all the tools in the tool box.

The ERP, as it's called, has some prominent references to carbon capture and underground storage. I'd be interested in the views of the Canadian chamber, as well as our friend from the CLC, on carbon capture and underground storage.

As a little bit of a frame, can it be viewed as a technology development initiative? I'm not the biggest Brad Wall fan in the world, but former premier Mr. Wall was talking about this five and seven years ago and saying that it could be particularly advantageous in China, which burns coal and needs this kind of technology. There's also a national unity element. I'm from the west, and this is a sensitive issue in the west. I'd be particularly interested in an amplification by the chamber on that issue.

Mr. Rousseau, I know that the building trades are very supportive not of only pipelines but of CCUS. It would provide employment for some of those 70,000 workers who are dependent upon oil and gas. I wonder if we could have some comments from the two of you on this emerging technology, which the International Energy Agency says will trap 10% of our global emissions.

[Mark Agnew]

I can get started, and then Mr. Rousseau can comment.

To the honourable member's point, certainly it has been flagged by numerous climate reports and energy transition documents that have been put out.

To the question you asked about national unity in particular, we spoke a little earlier about the important role that oil and gas plays in the Canadian economy. It's also important for the mix of our exports by value. It is quite an important part of that.

Certainly we are going to be producing oil and gas for some time, but at the same time, from what I gather from the snippets of the ERP that I've seen, there's a fairly heavy reliance on the oil and gas sector making some fairly steep reductions in emissions between now and 2030. I think the only credible way in which we're going to do that is with the deployment of CCUS technology.

One thing that I think is important to put on the record, given that the budget is coming next week with another major government announcement, is that we're hoping to see a fairly sizable down payment by the government in next week's budget that will support the deployment and the sustainment of the technology, because it is going to be very capital-intensive and expensive to use.

[Larry Rousseau]

Thank you for that question.

To start, especially getting back to a previous honourable member's comment, I think everybody should be quite clear that, for the CLC, when we represent three million workers and when we're talking about unionized jobs across this country, we can't have good unionized jobs without strong industry. We have to work together.

What we have to look at is the path we're going to take for sustainable employment going down the line. The message we are trying to get across is that we understand investor concerns and we understand profitability concerns. We get all of that. What we need to make sure is that we understand that we just cannot, based on that, turn around and say, “Well, the workers...whatever.” We have to make sure that we plan, going forward, on sustainability not only for energy but for employment as well.

I'm going to ask Tara to comment on carbon capture in a moment.

As far as the building trades are concerned, I'm going to tell you one thing: Absolutely we want more jobs, not fewer jobs. Whatever we can do to make sure that happens, as I said, we have to make sure it happens in a sustainable way.

Tara.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we're out of time.

We'll go to Madame Pauzé now, please, for two and a half minutes.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue on with the subject we were discussing, carbon capture and storage.

My question is for you, Mr. Mousseau.

In its report, the Global CCS Institute points out that there are 29 such facilities around the world, of which only five are devoted to storage. All other facilities are being used to scrape the bottom of oil wells for the last drops of oil.

I would like to talk about the status of this technology and relate it to what you told us earlier, that we need to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as possible.

[Larry Rousseau]

Indeed. Thank you for your question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I apologize. My question was for Mr. Mousseau. Your names are very similar. One starts with M and the other one starts with R.

[Larry Rousseau]

Ha ha! I'd also like to hear from Mr. Mousseau.

[Prof. Normand Mousseau]

It's true, we have very little infrastructure for simply storing carbon dioxide. Most facilities reuse it for funding purposes. Basically, it helps fund facilities. Furthermore, none of these facilities achieve the over 90% reduction they committed to once they have gone through the entire life cycle.

We still need to address some issues. It's not impossible, but we need to invest in technology development and meet the targets.

These uncertainties mean that we can't focus on oil alone. First, we first need to stop using oil and gas anywhere we can. We will need to invest in capturing and storing carbon. We will also need to put an end to other subsidies for using oil so that we don't get trapped into using oil elsewhere in the Canadian economy.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Rousseau, since you had something to say, would you like to add anything?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In 30 seconds, please.

[Larry Rousseau]

I have nothing to add. Mr. Mousseau explained it very well.

Thank you very much.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Perfect.

I have one last quick question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perhaps you could make a comment instead.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Earlier, I asked Mr. Mousseau about the dangers of carbon burial. Now I would like to hear about the dangers of transporting carbon.

[Prof. Normand Mousseau]

It can be transported by pipeline and that's how we will have to do it. That will involve quite heavy infrastructure, and if we want to do it economically, we will need very localized sites to transport the CO₂ before we bury it. CO₂ is heavy and it will stay close to the ground. Using it like that carries health and safety risks, but we have no choice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Mousseau.

Ms. Collins, you have the floor.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To follow up with Mr. Mousseau on what he was just talking about, 80% of captured carbon is used for enhanced oil recovery. The only proven market for CCUS right now is enhanced oil recovery. I'm going to quote from the letter written by 400 academics and experts:

Effective solutions to achieve deep emission reductions in the next decade along a pathway to zero emissions are already at hand, including renewable energy, electrification and energy efficiency. Funding CCUS diverts resources from these proven, more cost effective solutions that are available on the timeframes required to mitigate climate change.

Despite decades of research, CCUS is neither economically sound nor proven at scale, with a terrible track record and limited potential to deliver significant, cost-effective emissions reductions.

I'm curious if you agree with those words.

[Prof. Normand Mousseau]

Yes, I agree with that.

Moreover, according to our modelling and analysis, we can't get by without it. We absolutely have to implement all reduction measures, but we're also going to have to invest in capture and storage. I'm not talking about utilization, I mean storage. Otherwise, we won't be able to achieve net zero.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Given our track record is that Canada has invested 14 times more in the oil and gas sector than in renewables, do you see an opportunity right now to switch and invest in some of those more proven pathways?

[Prof. Normand Mousseau]

We absolutely must invest in the electrification of many processes, such as heating and transportation, wherever we are able to do so, to try to reduce emissions as much as possible. Right now, we need to redouble our efforts in this area, rather than supporting new developments in the oil and gas sector.