Environment Committee on March 31st, 2022

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Yes, I agree. The risk of them not acting on their commitments should be taken seriously—

[Dale Beugin]

The risk of them acting should also be taken seriously. The risk of them moving, committing and following through on those commitments should be taken seriously.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay.

I'll move to Ms. Levin at this point in time, because you talked about carbon capture, utilization and storage.

Ms. Levin, the International Energy Agency talked about the necessity of carbon capture, utilization and storage being a part of the 2050 goals put forward by COP26, saying that the most tangible 7% of reductions would happen with CCUS. However, you're saying it's not a good subsidy. Is that correct?

[Julia Levin]

I'm saying what the IPCC scientists are also saying, which is that the best path to a 1.5°C future includes carbon dioxide removal, but through natural, nature-based solutions and not through engineered CCUS. Certainly, both the IEA and the IPCC don't allow for....

The lion's share of that CCUS that's in the IEA's net-zero road map is actually not for the oil and gas sector, but sectors like cement. They're some of those niche sectors that we will still need in 2050, when we don't know what other decarbonization options are there.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

We won't need energy in 2030.

[Julia Levin]

Certainly, we will need energy.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Where will all that energy come from in 2030? Can I get some kind of postulation from you?

[Julia Levin]

The energy will come from a mix of renewable sources. In addition, we will have energy efficiency measures that greatly decrease the amount of energy that is required.

A combination of those things has been modelled for countries and for the world in allowing us to achieve our climate targets and still—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

You do realize that none of this modelling actually works and hasn't worked to this point in time. In fact, we continue to consume more power everywhere around the world, including in Canada. Technology takes more power. Everything we do in society takes more power.

We're potentially going to need more power in Canada, despite the fact that we're more efficient. We've become four times more efficient in the last four decades with our power consumption, but we still consume more power. We're a power-intensive society.

[Julia Levin]

I agree that we have to do—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

You're thinking that there's going to be that interruption. Do you think that's going to change?

[Julia Levin]

Yes, I think it is changing. There are huge investments being made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a good, succinct answer, Ms. Levin. Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Thompson for five minutes.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Levin, I will continue with you to start. Thank you to all the witnesses for coming this evening.

Thank you as well for sharing the report from Environmental Defence. In reading that, I noted in the executive summary the tally of how much financial support has been provided to fossil fuels by the federal government.

Could you clarify if this dollar amount cites the wage subsidy, the Canada emergency response benefit and the federal payments to western provinces for oil and gas cleanup?

[Julia Levin]

The oil and gas cleanup was in our 2020 report and was not included in our 2021 report.

In our 2020 report, we found that $18 billion went to the oil and gas sector. That was included because most of that money went to Suncor and CNRL, which are companies that have targets in terms of their own cleanup work. They paused their own cleanup work, took public dollars and didn't do any extra work, so it was a fossil fuel subsidy.

In terms of the wage subsidy, we also did include the part of the wage subsidy that went to oil and gas companies. It was a huge underestimation, though, because so little of that information is made available.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Following that thread, in the executive summary you also stated that real climate solutions are not being properly funded.

To this end, something I see in my riding.... The federal government spent $100 billion since 2015, but in my riding of St. John's East, in 2021, for example, $4.8 million federal dollars were committed to the low-carbon economy leadership fund to support 13 climate action funds in the city. The provincial government also contributed to this. Between 2019 and 2021, clean technology innovation and research development as part of the transition funding was $51.8 million with almost $10 million from the province.

These are just two examples. Could you speak to this in relation to climate solutions not being properly funded?

[Julia Levin]

The $100 billion number includes a range of things that aren't actually about building climate solutions. It's a number the government throws around, but there's never any documentation of the things that are in there. I would love to see more fulsome documentation. Mostly, a lot of it is infrastructure spending that isn't actually for climate solutions.

I'm happy that those investments in your community are there. I'm not saying the government has done nothing on renewables. I'm just saying it's a fraction.

Take EDC, for example. In most countries in the world, the public financing ratio between fossil fuels and renewables is 2:1. In Canada it is 14:1. We have a tremendously bad track record in terms of support to fossil fuels instead of support to climate solutions that make everyone's lives better.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I want to move on to other questions, but I do want to note that it's a very broad statement that solutions are not being properly funded.

I want to reference the 2022 report, “Blocking Ambition: Fossil fuel subsidies in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador” by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Canadian provinces also spend public funds to incentivize fossil fuel development and forgo substantial uncollected royalties and tax revenues. The report states that in the fiscal year 2020-21, the Government of British Columbia provided $765 million in fossil fuel subsidies. The Government of Alberta provided $1.32 billion.

Could you speak to how federal spending on fossil fuel subsidies compares to that of other levels of government? In other words, this is really a provincial-federal reality.

[Julia Levin]

For sure, we have to phase out subsidies at both the provincial and federal levels. The difference is that almost all of the subsidies at the federal level are production subsidies, and at the provincial level you have a mix of production and consumption subsidies, and not so at the federal level.

I would encourage the federal government to show leadership. It's the only level of government that has made commitments around reforming fossil fuel subsidies. That is also the case now in British Columbia, because it is reforming its royalty regime to make sure it doesn't subsidize oil and gas. A lot of work needs to happen at the provincial level, for sure.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I want to get another question in, and I think I'll probably—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You can get in a comment, but not an answer at this point.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Basically, can the federal-provincial subsidies help shift to less polluting methods or renewable energy? Is there a capacity to also be part of the transition?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The answer to that might have to come at another opportunity.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mrs. Vignola, you have two and a half minutes.