Evidence of meeting #36 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was energy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Ms. McPherson.
We'll now go into the second round of questioning, and we will commence with Mr. Hoback.
You have three minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
It's because we've gone over. All the members went over in the first round—
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'm getting penalized because the Liberals went over their time.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
That's not right.
I'll have to be very quick, Mr. Egan. I had lots of questions for you.
Let's compare the gas going to the Gazprom pipeline to the gas that's produced in Canada. What's the ESG, for example, of the companies involved in Gazprom's supplies versus here in Canada?
4:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
I have no study to make reference on that. Obviously, you can access satellite maps of the world from the IEA and other sources that show methane emissions around the world. What's really striking is how low the emissions are in Canada compared to how they are in other parts of the world, like Russia. There is one comment on the “E”.
To comment on the “S” and the “G”, I don't see a mass movement from countries like North America to Russia of young engineers wanting to work in the oil and gas industry. Perhaps that's some indication on the “S” and the “G”.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
As far as the governance is concerned, that's self-proclaimed on its own.
The point I'm trying to make is there's a reason that Germany is looking at us in the long term and asking, as they look at our industries and their ESG requirements, where they want to see their supply chain get the supply of products they need for their facilities. There's also the fact that we have the war in Ukraine creating hardship at this point in time and forcing them to look at the future. Before, it was pretty easy; you just opened the valve and took the gas from Russia.
I'm curious. You talked about the 18 years left. In those 18 years, if we were to displace Russian gas, what would that mean for the global environment?
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
It would mean a dramatic decrease in emissions, straight up.
Again, Canadian gas is produced to the highest standards of environmental performance. The corporate governance we have in our country is exceptional. The transparency of the companies is extraordinary. All of that goes into creating what, I think, is a better quality product.
Moreover, and to come back to the question from your colleague about technology, I don't know of a sector in Canada that's investing more in technological improvements to further reduce our emissions and to further improve our performance. There's a reason why we have many across industry in this country talking about how a Canadian molecule is the cleanest molecule. It's because we work to such high standards, and I think we should be proud of those standards.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
In that situation, then, if you're a Canadian company, if you're not allowed to get your product to market even though you've taken all of these steps, why would you continue to invest in doing this work in Canada when at least in the U.S., if you did the same work, you could get it to market?
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
That's a serious risk to future investment in the sector in Canada.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
What does that mean for first nations and for investment in small communities all across Canada?
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
It means less economic opportunity for all of those communities.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
No, I'm afraid you're out of time. It's now over three minutes. I'm sorry.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I think you have to watch the clock a little closer. It's not fair.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Well, everyone took advantage of it. I do try to the best of my abilities, but when members do go over, this is what happens. My apologies for that.
Next we go to Dr. Fry. Dr. Fry, you have three minutes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you.
I just wanted to go back to what both my colleagues, Monsieur Bergeron and Heather McPherson have said.
I think we know that Europe is determined to have energy, obviously, for its heating and industrial purposes. That's its immediate need, but then it has a medium- and long-term strategy, which is what Canada is trying to focus on. That strategy is obviously to become carbon-neutral, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to use hydrogen.
When he came here, Chancellor Scholz said that he's looking at Canadian hydrogen to produce hydrogen. Rare minerals that we have here can produce electric cars. We can look at doing both of those things immediately, right now. We obviously need the fossil fuel source of gas.
You said there was an enormous benefit for people in the world for affordable fossil fuels. It is that enormous use of fossil fuels around the world that is creating the climate change that we're having now.
I think I wanted you to answer a question. You said that you must build infrastructure, because obviously natural gas is the best way to create hydrogen. You know that solar energy focusing on water can split it into oxygen and hydrogen— H2 is hydrogen, and oxygen is O2. The result is steam. That is what you're doing here to remove greenhouse gas emissions. We know that micro-organisms can produce hydrogen as well.
Canada has an opportunity, because we have 20% of the world's water, to produce hydrogen. Your argument that we only need to go to fossil fuels and we need to build a huge infrastructure for fossil fuels is only dealing with an immediate need. It is not looking at where Canada and Europe want to go in the long term.
I wanted to know why you believe that we cannot produce hydrogen without fossil fuels.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association
I don't think I said that it was the only way to produce hydrogen—it isn't.
To the member's point, hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis. Electrolysis technology is the technology that the member is referring to. Those are viable means to produce it. With any technology you use, you have to look at the cost. You have to look at the viability in light of the cost—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of time.
I wanted to just focus on one quick thing that I really want you to answer.
The question, then, is why would we want to build a huge fossil fuel infrastructure when we should be looking at investing in ways to deal with electrolysis and the form of micro-organisms to create hydrogen?
Let hydrogen be the future—and of course, for electric cars, etc., Canada has rare minerals in large amounts. We have all the resources to do it—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
You are considerably over time. Perhaps I could ask that you get to your question.
Mr. Egan, could you provide a timely second response?
