Industry Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

My questions are for Ms. Seagrave.

My understanding is that your organization provides critical strategic investment advice and services to business developers of clean, green and sustainable technologies. In your opinion, what are the biggest hurdles faced by new enterprises entering the clean energy sector?

The second part of my question is, can you tell us how Bill C-235 will have a positive effect in addressing those challenges?

[Meaghan Seagrave]

Thanks so much. That's a great question.

The challenges are mostly around policy alignment and critical investment that is also patient capital and experienced capital for this type of sector and the build-out of this sector.

Most of these types of projects require significant long-term CapEx. We don't have the investment backing in Canada that they do in the U.S., or frankly in the EU, to mitigate some of these hurdles. As I mentioned before, in the U.S., the introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act, the climate-smart commodities investments, and the investments to boost global competitiveness are all basically attracting talent, companies and technologies away from Canada, because we don't have the same types of investment mechanisms here.

With regard to the framework that has been developed, I think it's just a starting point. It's foundational. I think it will help spur that private capital because industry will know that greening and clean tech—clean, green, sustainable technologies—are going to be a priority for the government. It will provide an opportunity to partner with the government and follow along because their investments will be considered secure.

I think it's just a starting point. I don't think it's the end-all and be-all. Given the conversation today, I think there are a lot of amendments that could happen to make some of the other witnesses a little bit more accepting of it.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

You also work with emerging companies that are commercializing technology that supports the transition towards a net-zero carbon economy. We know that's a challenge faced in other sectors.

How would this bill help innovators and researchers in commercializing?

[Meaghan Seagrave]

I don't think it's going to directly impact them in terms of commercializing, but, again, if government is acting as a leader, then industry in a lot of cases will follow, and they definitely follow with regard to investment. Spurring that private capital is exactly what's going to be needed to help build out these companies and help them get over those commercialization hurdles.

Again, government taking the lead will also have an impact on what's happening in our research institutions—provincial, federal, academic, across the board. If a leadership role is being taken, those institutions tend to follow, and the research money tends to follow, which is also going to help those companies overcome commercialization hurdles.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Just touching upon your previous comment about some of the feedback we heard today from the witnesses, I want to remind committee members that when we had MP Jim Carr here at the last meeting, he talked about the bill giving an explicit mandate and instructions to build a framework of consultation. Those directions were being given to the Minister of Industry in consultation with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment.

I have one final question for you. In your opinion, in what ways could this bill affect the Canadian agricultural industry as a whole?

[Meaghan Seagrave]

That's a great question.

I would go back to something Mr. Orb brought up. Our farmers are stewards of the land that we have here in Canada, and we need to remember that building out those strong domestic biomass-based industries will actually help protect our farmers from those economic uncertainties. If we are moving toward clean, green and sustainable technologies, most of them are going to be bio-based and biomass-based as a starting point, so that's agriculture, forestry and even our fisheries sectors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ness, in your opening remarks, you said that wind energy, solar energy and electric cars depend on fossil fuels. If I understood you correctly, why is that?

[Justine Ness]

Green energy still needs the oil and gas sector. What do you think lubricates your wind energy?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Why does my EV need oil to run? Why does a solar panel need oil to produce energy? Why does a wind turbine need oil to turn?

[Justine Ness]

Your wind turbines do and your electric cars do, because you have moving parts that need to be lubricated by oil. You still need oil and gas.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That's what I wanted to clarify.

Are you okay with the fact that the government used your tax dollars, my tax dollars and the tax dollars of every single Quebecker and Canadian to buy a pipeline instead of leaving it up to the private sector? Shouldn't the private sector be in charge of developing the oil industry given the risks involved?

[Justine Ness]

I'm sorry; I caught only parts of that.

Can you say that again, please?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I think the Government of Canada's purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline is problematic because it was the government, not private enterprise.

Should the government really be taking financial risks with Quebeckers' and Canadians' money by buying a pipeline?

[Justine Ness]

The pipeline should never have been purchased by the federal government; it should have stayed in the private sector.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

If that's the case, what should happen now? Should it be sold?

If so, would you be in favour of reinvesting the money in a fund to support the energy transition, small business innovation and research in Alberta specifically or on the prairies?

[Justine Ness]

I think that question should be directed to Justin Trudeau to see what he thinks.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Someone already asked that question.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You have seven seconds, but I'm feeling generous.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will take advantage of your generosity.

Ms. Ness, paragraph 3(3)(c) of Bill C‑235 says that nuclear energy would be considered. Are you in favour of nuclear energy development on the prairies?

[Justine Ness]

I'm in favour of all industry, so why not?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire.

Mr. Cannings, over to you.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'll go back to Mr. Sohi.

You made comments in your opening remarks about buildings and greenhouse gas emissions and that much of that carbon output we're trying to cut down on comes from cities and municipalities, from buildings really, and to some extent, obviously, from transport.

I've heard estimates that up to 40% of our carbon footprint comes from buildings, both in the construction and the lighting and heating and cooling. You mentioned the task that we have to retrofit those buildings. We basically have a huge task, if we want to meet our targets, to make our buildings as energy-efficient as possible. That means not just retrofit programs for homes, but for apartment buildings, condos and industrial buildings.

I have two questions. One, how are we going to incentivize this financially? It's going to be a big job. Two, what would the impact of this be on the Prairies? This would be going on in every community in the Prairies, even small communities in Saskatchewan, and in Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, etc. What would the impact be on the availability of employment in the Prairies and across Canada?

[Amarjeet Sohi]

The reason I'm here is that.... If this bill is going to go ahead, please include municipalities in the consultation, because it's so critical. In order to achieve the objectives, prairie municipalities need to be at the table, because this relates to prairie provinces.

Retrofitting existing buildings and repurposing them will help us achieve a number of objectives. First of all, it is a job creator. It ends up creating thousands and thousands of jobs for tradespeople in the local communities where those buildings are being retrofitted.

Second, we have a huge crisis in affordable housing in the prairie provinces, including Edmonton. We have close to 70,000 Edmontonian families that are in need of affordable rental housing, so we can repurpose some of these buildings into more affordable rental buildings.

The third component is to help us reduce emissions, so this is a win-win situation on many fronts. This is not only a small amount of emissions, but a significant amount of emissions, which will allow our communities to be net-zero by 2050, which is the federal goal.

It's local jobs, more affordable housing and a reduction in emissions, and it also helps spur innovation in the construction sector. As you give predictability to the construction industry that over time a certain amount of resources from each order of government will be available, we can leverage those by working with the private sector to expand the work and give that predictability over the long term to foster innovation in the construction sector. This is a win-win situation.