Environment Committee on March 31st, 2022

[Dale Beugin]

And we'll get better return on public dollars in other areas.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

That's very good. Thank you so much.

Mr. Buffalo, I have a question for you as well. I was very interested in your remarks and the perspective you're bringing, and I thank you for being here representing first nations.

As Mr. Dreeshen said in his introductory remarks, we can't speak for first nations. We can't represent you. We have to work with you.

We have heard from other representatives of first nations who don't share your view, who have a different perspective on fossil fuels, the industry and what should be done.

Would you agree that there are a great diversity of views within first nations regarding fossil fuel development?

[Stephen Buffalo]

Absolutely, but that comes with a lack of understanding. Of course, when you start putting science behind money and money behind science, you're going to have polarized views, and of course, when we talk about public money, that's all money that was generated from somewhere. Right now we're seeing a government that just opens a tickle trunk and they pull out this money to support certain things. The polarization is definitely there.

I know we lack a lot of capacity in certain areas, and there's misinformation. Of course, when it's only one-sided, when the government is only allowed to say one thing about certain issues, then without a balanced consultation.... Like I said, none of our members were ever consulted in this. You might have spoken to nations or people who support fully shutting down this sector, but it has provided so much for us.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Right. Are you saying that the first nations representatives who are for shutting down the sector do not know what they're talking about?

[Stephen Buffalo]

No, not at all. I'm just saying that they haven't heard the side of what the oil and gas sector provides.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Why do you think that is?

[Stephen Buffalo]

Why do I think that is? Well again, there's a lot of messaging that isn't clear, and it isn't given properly in information.

Right now we have teachers telling us that the oil sands are bad when actually the revenue it provides and the jobs that it provides are still a good thing. With the carbon capture, yes, it might not meet everything that you're looking for today, but it's getting close, and I'm betting on the future generations to fix that for us.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

You did also mention that you and the group you represent have a lot concern for Mother Earth and for the environment. You mentioned that there were some projects that you feel are good for the environment. I was wondering if you could give me an example of a program in the fossil fuel sector that you feel is good for the environment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Answer very quickly please. We have 25 seconds, but there's plenty of time for an example or two.

[Stephen Buffalo]

If a first nations invested as an owner of, for example, the Coastal GasLink, that's revenue that isn't governed under the communist system of the Indian Act. That's the positive it brings.

We're so far behind in this. We're not included in these discussions. You only include the ones that really agree with what you're saying. That's part of the problem.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm glad you're here today then.

Thank you.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Levin When you appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources last month, you stated that, even with carbon capture and storage, we would only be able to remove between 3% and 9% of the carbon produced throughout the life cycle of oil and gas.

In the current Parliament, Mr. Wilkinson has publicly stated that carbon capture, utilization and storage technology, or CCUS, wouldn't be in the toolbox by 2030 due to its commercial maturity and costs. However, we witnessed a dramatic turn of events this week when we were presented with the 2030 emissions reduction plan, which contains a tax credit for the CCUS.

Can you comment on this announcement in light of Mr. Wilkinson's statements, and also on what would be achievable in the next five to seven years with respect to green energy?

I would appreciate it if you could do that in two minutes, since I don't have much time.

[Julia Levin]

Mr. Wilkinson has said various things about CCUS. In the past he has gone on record saying that carbon capture and storage won't be part of the 2030 tool kit because of the timelines that are required to design and build these projects, yet he put forth a plan that banks heavily on CCUS to do a lot of the lifting in terms of emission reductions. Similar comments have been made in the past by Minister Guilbeault, that certainly CCUS doesn't have a role to play in 2030. I would point out that discrepancy.

It's just very risky to gamble on an unproven speculative technology to do a lot of the emission reductions that we're expecting to happen before 2030 in terms of global capacity. I spoke of Canada's capacity where we're capturing less than 0.05% of our emissions and most of that is actually going for enhanced oil recovery.

This technology has existed for 30 to 40 years and has been heavily subsidized for that same time frame, yet we're still only capturing less than 40 megatonnes globally. That's 0.001% of the world's greenhouse emissions. It is a technology that has shown itself to over-promise and under-deliver.

One of the real issues with carbon capture and storage in the oil and gas sector is that it ignores 80% of the problem, which is the downstream emissions coming from burning the fossil fuels in our cars and our homes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Levin.

I understand that the successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions are more notable in Europe and that their laws are tougher than ours, particularly in the United Kingdom and France. This is coupled with the will of the members of the European Union, which is ultimately paying off.

Yesterday, we learned that, in 2021, solar energy sources grew by 23% and wind energy sources, by 14%, not to mention other energy sources, such as geothermal energy.

We often hear that a predictable regulatory and policy environment is of paramount importance if Canada is to attract truly forward‑looking investors for future generations.

A study by the Ember group recently revealed that a 20% growth rate in green energy over 10 years would limit global warming to 1.5°C.

Ms. Levin, the economic potential of a massive investment in green energy is obvious to me, especially from the government, which would finally set an example and get the ball rolling. What do you think about this?

Would the economic benefits be as good as the environmental benefits for present and, above all, for future generations?

[Julia Levin]

We really need to be investing in scaling renewable energy power here in Canada, where we are definitely below our potential in renewable energy capacity and the part of our mix that comes from renewable energy outside of hydro. The return on investment is enormous. Building new renewable energy power is cheaper than running existing fossil fuel energy production. In terms of job creation and co-benefits, cleaner air and jobs in every community across the country, there's no question that investing in renewables is necessary.

Public support is also necessary, because fossil fuels have a huge incumbent advantage over the renewable energy sector. That's why we need to put public dollars behind the things we want to see. So far, we've seen less than $2 billion over four years promised for the renewable energy sector. There was an investment tax credit also promised for renewable energy and batteries. We haven't seen any movement on that one, yet we're steaming ahead on the carbon capture tax credit and continued fossil fuel subsidies.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

Are you aware of the demands of people working in the oil energy sector who are concerned about the transfer of their skills to the renewable energy sector?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 15 seconds, Ms. Levin.

[Julia Levin]

I'm not sure about the fears, but definitely in recycling in all sectors—in our EVs, our batteries and our renewable energy—it's important that we really build the kind of circular economy approach to the solutions we want to see, to minimize the environmental impacts. We also have to be thoughtful about those supply chains and make sure we're not causing undue harm to the communities whose land they're on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's the only way we can get everyone's questions in.

We'll go to Ms. Collins for six minutes, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

My first question is for Ms. Levin.

I'm wondering if you can respond to the suggestion that we should move away from strict definitions of subsidies and efficiency. To meet the government's international commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, don't we need a clear definition of what a subsidy is and, ideally, a definition that aligns with internationally agreed-upon standards?

[Julia Levin]

Yes, I would say that having clear definitions is helpful in terms of making sure that globally we're addressing this issue in the same way. I do take the point that sometimes we get so lost in these definitions that we miss the forest for the trees, and that can be very dangerous.

I think a simple definition is that any type of public support—public funding—that goes to the sector is a subsidy and has to be eliminated.

My worry with “inefficient” is that because there is no agreed-upon definition for “inefficient”, governments like Canada's can use that as a loophole to continue subsidizing the fossil fuel sector. Countries like Italy, as you heard the other day, have just said that all subsidies are inefficient, so that's one way to approach it.

I think there's a balance between making sure that we have agreed-upon language that doesn't let governments use weasel words to get out of real action but that also lets us have comparable targets with our peers.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you so much.

As a follow-up to that, you mentioned Italy, but also, the U.K. has recently found that all fossil fuel subsidies are inefficient. As Canada is proceeding with our long overdue G20 peer review process with Argentina, what do you think Canada can learn from these conclusions?

[Julia Levin]

One of the most important conclusions is just the sense of urgency. Most countries finished their peer reviews in 12 to 16 months. Canada is approaching the four-year mark and we still haven't seen the self-review portion, let alone when the two countries share.... It really exemplifies the lack of urgency with which the government has tackled this issue.

We've talked about the time frame going from 2005 to 2030, but I'll remind committee members that this was a promise made in 2009. We've had a lot of time to act on it.

In terms of findings, I would highlight some of the peer reviews that were done, especially Italy's peer review, but also, the U.S. and China had a peer review with a lot of.... One thing is the inventorizing, but more important is the reform and looking at what the other peer reviews have put forward in terms of steps to actually reform their fossil fuels.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks so much.

In 2021 alone, Export Development Canada provided over $5 billion in public financing for fossil fuels. If the government is going to make good on their promise to end public financing of fossil fuels, do you have recommendations for changes for the Export Development Act?

[Julia Levin]

I think we have to put exclusionary principles within the act. We focused on EDC as a Crown corporation, but there are so many Crown corporations that are giving money to the fossil fuel sector, and the problem is that no one is tracking it. This is a really onerous task that is falling into the hands of two or three people within the Canadian climate movement, and that's it. No one else is tracking this. CDEV, TMC...there are tons of corporations.

We need legislation. What we're asking for in terms of implementing the promise that was made to phase out fossil fuel financing is broader legislation that prohibits—puts exclusionary policies in place towards—any fossil fuel financing, including oil and gas through false solutions, through gas and through CCUS, because just this week, actually, EDC created a new transition bond that is going to double down on CCUS, and that's kind of what we're seeing happen.

The shift in the country is in realizing that we can't talk about fossil fuel subsidies the way we did before, so we're just going to call them CCUS and we're just going to call them fossil hydrogen, but we're going to take the exact same amount of money and just put it to those technologies and pretend that they're not subsidies anymore. We need policies that really address that issue.