Evidence of meeting #9 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cost.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Brossard  Vice-President, Communications, Montreal Economic Institute
Doran  Executive Director, Clean Energy Canada
Giguère  Senior Policy Analyst, Montreal Economic Institute
Honourable Danielle Smith  Premier of Alberta, Government of Alberta
Bataille  Principal Investigator, Net Zero Industry
Smith  President, New Economy Canada

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

Good morning, colleagues.

Today is meeting number nine of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format and is in public. We have witness testimony for the full two hours.

For those here in person, please follow the health and safety guidelines for using earpieces, as written on the cards on your table.

The committee is resuming its study on the effectiveness, potential improvements and capability of Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan.

This morning we are meeting with the following witnesses.

From Clean Energy Canada, we have Rachel Doran, executive director.

It's a pleasure to have you here.

From the Montreal Economic Institute, we have Monsieur Renaud Brossard, vice-president, communications, and Monsieur Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst.

I'd like to welcome you.

Each witness has five minutes for their opening remarks. However, the clerk informed me that the representatives of the Montreal Economic Institute were going to share their speaking time. Is that correct?

Renaud Brossard Vice-President, Communications, Montreal Economic Institute

Actually, I will be delivering the opening remarks alone.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

That's perfect.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Chair, I have a quick question.

Regarding the minister's appearance on her mandate and priorities, the motion was made 35 days ago. I'm just curious to know whether we have any update, and whether she has an hour available any time soon.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

We will be advised by October 24 with respect to her availability. At that point, I will come back.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

Thank you.

Ms. Doran, you have the floor for five minutes.

Rachel Doran Executive Director, Clean Energy Canada

Good morning, members of the committee.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

I'm sorry. I forgot to ask you something.

Can you stop?

Do you prefer English or French, Mrs. Doran?

11:05 a.m.

Executive Director, Clean Energy Canada

Rachel Doran

I'll deliver my remarks in English and am happy to take questions in French.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

Okay. When your time is close to the end, you will see this card coming up, which will let you know that there is one minute left. Once that is done, the other side will come up.

I'll do the same for you, Mr. Brossard.

For my dear colleagues, I'd like you to also pay attention to my one minute, so that you can adjust by asking a short question to get a short reply. Sometimes I see that your question is close to three-fourths of the minute, alas, and unfortunately I have to cut off the witness in her response. I'm leaving it up to you to judge that last minute in order to be able to get one or two short answers.

Thank you very much for your collaboration.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

You're asking politicians to be short-winded.

Voices

Oh, oh!

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

Well, we learn. I did. After 10 years, I've learned.

Bruce Fanjoy Liberal Carleton, ON

Short wind is a renewable resource, though.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

I'm quite pleased to see that the committee is very harmonious this morning.

It's over to you, Mrs. Doran, for your five minutes with respect to introductory remarks.

11:05 a.m.

Executive Director, Clean Energy Canada

Rachel Doran

Thank you, members of the committee. Good morning.

Clean Energy Canada is a national think tank based out of Simon Fraser University that is focused on accelerating the country's clean energy transition.

When Canada launched its 2020 climate plan, it joined a global wave of action marked by strong international co-operation, low interest rates, top-down policy and a singular focus on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

That work has yielded progress. Policies already in place across all levels of government are projected to cut emissions to 24% below 2005 levels by 2030. However, like much of the rest of the world, Canada now stands at an inflection point. On one hand, we cannot turn away from climate action. It is no longer just a moral imperative but also an economic one. Two-thirds of global energy investment this year will go to clean technologies. All of Canada's 10 largest non-U.S. trade partners have net-zero commitments and carbon pricing, and roughly half are introducing carbon border adjustment mechanisms and domestic EV requirements. On the other hand, this new era does demand a renewed approach, one that emphasizes how emissions reductions can also reduce household costs and ensure Canada's competitiveness, but this needs to be a regrouping, not a retreat, refocusing on action now over ambition later.

A new approach should follow these principles.

First, in Canada, our motto needs to be “electrify, baby, electrify”. The transition is already under way. One in four cars sold globally this year will be electric. Renewables like solar, wind and hydro power now provide over one-third of global electricity, overtaking coal, and they are expected to meet 95% of demand growth between now and 2027. Investment in clean tech is 50% higher than total spending on oil, gas and coal globally. This is all happening because electricity is about three times more efficient than fossil fuels and continues to get cheaper with scale, making electrification increasingly driven by economics.

Canada has what it takes to lead in this new environment: a stable investment climate, clean power, abundant natural resources, innovation capacity and a skilled workforce. A 2021 projection of Canada's clean energy sector suggested that it would reach $107 billion in GDP by 2030, with $58 billion in investment and 600,000 jobs.

Clean energy investments also deliver more bang for the buck. Every dollar invested in clean buildings has been found to create 2.8 times more jobs than fossil fuels, with solar creating 1.5 times more.

Over the next five years, we need to focus on the technologies that are already ready for prime time, and we need to scale them while helping strategic industries pivot to remain competitive in this global shift. This will require the right policy support: new supports for consumers, including grants and loans to help them adopt electrotech like EVs and heat pumps, and updated building codes to make sure that we're building for that electrified future now. The federal government can also help support modernizing and expanding electricity grids by finalizing the clean electricity investment tax credit, leveraging the Canada Infrastructure Bank and treating a united Canada grid as a modern nation-building project.

Second, we need to prioritize a short list of high-impact, cost-effective existing policies that can do the heavy lifting. Canada has spent the past decade building a robust regulatory framework. We have to build on it, not dismantle it, but we can focus on the policies that do the most for emissions reductions as well as for competitiveness and cost savings for Canadians. This will mean strengthening industrial carbon pricing, which is the most cost-effective tool that we have and supports clean investment in projects like Agnico Eagle Mines in northern Ontario. Finalizing methane regulations can offer a quick, low-cost way to cut one of the most harmful near-term greenhouse gases. Maintaining the electric vehicle availability standard, even with slightly lowered long-term targets, can reduce emissions in one of the highest-polluting sectors while saving Canadians thousands at the pump. The clean electricity regulations are essential to send a market signal to ensure that the power we're going to be plugging into is clean as we electrify households and industries.

Third, we need to create momentum by updating how we measure success. The next five years need to be defined by solutions and tangible results. We need to embark on the energy transition with a feeling of optimism and accomplishment, and years of public-opinion research show that Canadians care about what they are gaining, not about what they supposedly can't have. Over the next five years, we need to focus on complementing those emissions targets with clear, tangible metrics that will be relatable to Canadians, like the number of heat pumps in homes, kilometres of transmission lines built and critical mineral mines operating by 2030, and the amount of foreign direct investment in the clean economy.

That said, we still need achievable, science-based 2035 targets. Net zero alone can be a dangerous proxy for doing something someday, leading to higher costs through delay. We won't rise to this moment or meet our climate obligations by doing less. Now is the time to build, to innovate and to ensure that Canada secures its place as a clean energy superpower in a rapidly changing world, because the future isn't coming; it's already here.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

Thank you, Mrs. Doran, for your opening remarks.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Brossard.

11:10 a.m.

Vice-President, Communications, Montreal Economic Institute

Renaud Brossard

Good morning, everyone.

I want to thank you for inviting us to testify. My colleague Gabriel Giguère and I are very pleased to be here to discuss certain policies adopted by the Canadian government for environmental reasons and the anticipated effects these policies will have on the economy, particularly on the Canadian families, workers and consumers who make it up.

Under the pretext of protecting the environment, the federal government has passed a series of new laws and put in place a host of new standards and regulations that have a direct impact on the daily lives of Canadian consumers, workers and taxpayers.

Among the measures put forward, one of the most costly for consumers has now been put on hold, while the federal government takes the time to revise it. I am referring here to the electric vehicle availability standard or, as it is more commonly known, phasing out the ban on gas-powered vehicles. This standard, widely considered by Canadians to be unrealistic, would mean gradually restricting the sale of gas-powered vehicles until they can no longer be purchased by consumers over a 10-year horizon.

Add to that the fact that the electric vehicles replacing them would cost much more to purchase, around $6,720 more for a sedan or $11,490 more for an SUV, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations. When it adopted a ban like this, the federal government failed to consider the capacity of provincial electricity grids to address the resulting increase in demand for electricity. According to some estimates, a measure like this could make demand for electricity shoot up from 7.5% to 15.3% and would require up to $294 billion to upgrade the grids and generation facilities of the country's power companies.

To be clear, this $294 billion in additional spending will be passed on to Canadian businesses and families connected to the electrical grids, who will pay higher fees if the ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles moves forward.

Canadians are more than just consumers. They are also workers and taxpayers, to name just two other labels that are put on them.

Over those years, adopting a policy to cap emissions in the Canadian energy sector has been particularly harmful, and it offers no concrete benefits for Canadians. Whether a tonne of CO2 is emitted by the Canadian energy sector or when Bombardier is manufacturing a new aircraft at its Mirabel facility, its effect remains the same. However, at the moment, the government is treating these two activities differently, capping one and giving a free pass to others.

In the global energy market where our companies operate, neither the Canadian federal government nor Canadian companies have an impact on overall energy demand. Every barrel of Canadian oil or every cubic metre of Canadian gas that remains in the ground as a result of legislation or regulation is systematically replaced by an equivalent from other producing countries, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, which are not subject to the strict Canadian regulatory environment.

Policies like this stunt the growth of Canada's energy industry and come at a significant cost. They prevent well-paid jobs from being created coast to coast to coast and, by extension, they deprive Canada's federal and provincial governments of significant tax revenues. In other words, this type of policy only has costs but delivers no benefits.

While the current government has already taken some good steps to reinvigorate the Canadian economy by putting a hold on some of the most damaging policies in recent years, we can only hope that it will go further and use this opportunity to reform the broken approval process that's preventing us from getting major projects done. If Bill C‑5 helps a bit, it would be better for Canada to have an approval process that is quick by default rather than by exception.

Thank you for your time and attention.

The Chair Liberal Angelo Iacono

Thank you very much, Mr. Brossard.

We will now begin the first round of questions. We'll now go to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Mrs. Anstey, go ahead please. The floor is yours for six minutes.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

Thank you.

I would like to direct my questions this afternoon to the Montreal Economic Institute witnesses, and either of you can respond.

There's been lots of conversation on this committee around the oil and gas emissions cap, specifically around the language and whether or not this is actually a production cap. I'm wondering if either of you would like to speak to the committee about that, as you referenced looking at these policies under the current government. What are your thoughts on that, please?

Gabriel Giguère Senior Policy Analyst, Montreal Economic Institute

The emissions cap is obviously going to reduce production. There will also be very significant economic repercussions. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it will mean a decline of several billion dollars in GDP by 2032, and the loss of 40,000 very high-quality jobs. I think everyone here knows that jobs in the oil and gas sector are very well paid, at about $150,000 a year.

To answer your question, Ms. Anstey, if we cap emissions, Canada will indeed reduce its production. What we're doing with this type of federal public policy is banning a certain part of production. That production will then be made elsewhere, in Qatar or Venezuela, for example. As a result, Canadians will not be able to benefit from these very good jobs.

Unfortunately, Canada will have no impact on global demand.

11:15 a.m.

Vice-President, Communications, Montreal Economic Institute

Renaud Brossard

Perhaps I can add to what my colleague is saying. The reason the PBO says this will lead to 40,300 jobs lost in 2032 with the referenced scenario is that it will be a cap on production. There will be a cap on Canadian production. As we mentioned, this will not have any effect on global demand. If we cap Canadian production, somebody else will fill that void. It can be Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Qatar or any oil-producing country. Those jobs will simply be going there instead of being in Canada, because we regulated those barrels out of production.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Carol Anstey Conservative Long Range Mountains, NL

Thank you.

I have a couple of follow-up points to that. I'm wondering if you can articulate, for everyday Canadians who might not be studying the technical language, what that means in terms of a real community impact, especially in areas that rely heavily on this sector. Can you articulate that for us a bit more?

11:20 a.m.

Vice-President, Communications, Montreal Economic Institute

Renaud Brossard

Absolutely.

When we're talking about $20.5 billion lost to Canada's economic potential, that's our GDP. A GDP is not just a figure of corporate profits and stuff like that. It is wages for people. It is the money that's being spent in local businesses in those communities. It is the opportunities that come from it for people who study in such fields as engineering and petrochemicals more generally. This $20.5 billion in lost GDP is $20.5 billion that's lost in a mixture of profitability for Canadian companies but also, and I think most importantly, in terms of wages for the workers who work in those fields and the small businesses who rely on those workers, and other workers in that field, for their patronage.