Industry Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 1, 2022, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Witnesses and members will therefore be participating virtually using Zoom. Everyone knows the rules, so raise your hand if you want to intervene.

Without further ado, it's my pleasure to introduce today's witnesses, who are taking the time to be with us today to talk about this important bill.

First up is Amarjeet Sohi, mayor of the City of Edmonton, who is participating remotely. Mr. Sohi is a former colleague. Welcome. It's good to see you.

We also have Justine Ness, president and chief operating officer of Safety First, who is with us in person here in Ottawa. Thank you for being here.

From Alberta Enterprise Group, we have Catherine Brownlee, president, who will be joining us at 4:30. We'll interrupt the question period and hear from Ms. Brownlee.

From Bioindustrial Innovation Canada, we have Meaghan Seagrave, executive director. From Fairness Alberta, via video conference, we have Bill Bewick, executive director. From the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, we have Raymond Orb.

Thanks to all for being here. Considering that we have a lot of witnesses, we'll start without further ado.

Let's start with Mr. Sohi.

You have the floor, Mr. Mayor.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Mayor, City of Edmonton]

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Amarjeet Sohi and I am the mayor of the city of Edmonton, Alberta.

Like many major cities in Canada, Edmonton is growing quickly and we are feeling the effects of the climate change crisis. It is our responsibility to work together towards solutions and to create action plans accordingly. This is why I am very excited to see the introduction of this bill, Bill C-235, by the Honourable Jim Carr.

The City of Edmonton supports the approach of local co-operation and engagement outlined in the bill and looks forward to being an active participant in the development of the framework. Municipalities are not specifically mentioned in clause 2, but we should be at the table as partners in this work.

The prairie region is very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Over the last 20 years, the insured costs of climate hazards in Alberta have been increasing. Since the 1990s, Alberta has experienced six out of the 10 biggest climate hazard insured losses in Canada.

The prairie region is warming at the fastest rate in Canada, outside of the Arctic region. This brings a high risk of flooding, a high risk of drought, and a high frequency of extreme heat events. Prairie cities will need to become more climate- and energy-resilient and we need to collaborate with all sectors and all orders of government to transition together. This transition will be a huge driver for job creation and economic growth.

The framework developed through the implementation of Bill C-235 will help prairie cities to proactively plan, collaborate and advance on employment and economic priorities that are intended to mitigate and minimize disruption from climate change. This work is happening at both the local and regional levels, and there are many opportunities, such as regional public transit programs, that can be built into this work.

I will give you a few examples of how the proposed federal framework aligns with Edmonton's strategic plans, and what we have already accomplished.

Edmonton's economic action plan sets the path of creating more jobs and more businesses, and it is purposefully designed to steer us towards opportunities in the green economy.

Edmonton's community energy transition strategy and action plan facilitates the growth of local green economic sectors, including renewable energy, green transit and construction, carbon capture and storage, and smart technology.

Since 2015, this strategy has already led to the city of Edmonton being on target to have 100% renewable electricity for its civic operations in the next few years; deployment of 60 electric buses, piloting of two hydrogen buses, and plans to deploy several hundred low-emission buses in the next decade; and development of district energy systems downtown and in the Blatchford community.

Collaboration with partners like the FCM and the Province of Alberta has resulted in Edmonton being the first large city in Alberta to have initiated a clean energy improvement program. Currently, three other Alberta municipalities have initiated their own CEIP, and 19 Alberta municipalities have passed clean energy improvement bylaws in preparation to start their programs.

As you can see, Edmonton and many prairie cities want to transition to a green economy. We are ready for this, and we need your help to be successful.

Another example is the role of partnerships and the great work being carried out due to the federal government's climate innovation fund, which has supported essential capacity building to better prepare Edmonton's real estate, building and construction industries to transition to a green economy.

The last city plan I want to highlight, which aligns with the proposed framework, is “Climate Resilient Edmonton: Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan”, which was approved in 2020 and is Edmonton's approach to adapting to the impacts of a changing climate.

One of the first priorities being undertaken is the development and implementation of our flood mitigation plan, a $1.6-billion investment plan that includes a combination of homeowner program, drainage systems improvements, green infrastructure and smarter stormwater networks that will allow Edmonton to anticipate and react to storms in real time.

Alberta will be home to some of the largest net-zero petrochemical manufacturing facilities in the world because of our provincial carbon offset framework, along with geological conditions that optimize for carbon capture and sequestration. One of the world's first net-zero hydrogen facilities will be located here in Edmonton by 2024.

I would be remiss not to advocate for policies that recognize decarbonization opportunities that align with the strengths of my region's economy. Becoming a carbon capture and hydrogen leader in the Prairies is not a given, specifically due to recent incentives of the Inflation Reduction Act that are creating more favourable conditions for those projects to be in the U.S. Canada can do more to increase the competitiveness of our hydrogen sector while increasing sustainable economic growth.

Prairie cities like Edmonton are ready to partner with anyone who will help us to build a new, inclusive economy. We're willing partners committed to being at the table, ready to work together. We will be involved in several different federal ministries, and the framework will allow us that singular focus and a point of access that will build efficiencies and allow us to address these challenges faster.

Thank you so much for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sohi.

We will now turn to Justine Ness. The floor is yours.

[Justine Ness, President and Chief Operating Officer, Safety First, As an Individual]

Thank you for having me on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

For the purpose of context, I would like to provide you with a brief background.

I'm the president and chief operating officer of an oil field services company that was established in 1996. It's a second-generation, family-owned company. I also come from a farming family and we have two beautiful daughters who are the fourth generation on the family farm.

The oil and gas sector and farming have been the heart and soul of not only our family, but also the majority of Albertans, Saskatchewanians and Manitobans.

My business works closely with Canada's world-class energy sector and is proud to do so. As president and COO of a business that helps industry improve areas of reasonable quality and safety, I can attest to the high standards already enforced in Canada's oil and gas industry. Yet, we have our Canadian government, which fails to support our industry and which is not allowing us to succeed to our fullest potential. We choose to ship oil across our oceans and support countries like Saudi Arabia.

According to the international merchandise trade database, Canada imported from Saudi Arabia approximately 1.5 billion dollars' worth in 2020, and 3.5 million tonnes in 2021. Saudi Arabia does not produce oil ethically, has little to no human rights and no regard for the environment, whereas in Canada we have created a safety industry around the care and protection of our industry-leading workers. Let's first look to our own industry and support our own country, our own citizens and our own economy.

Every day we see innovations brought forward by Canadian energy producers and we see just how important they are to the economic and social fabric of western Canada. Hard-working men and women focus on delivering the world's safest, most ethically sourced and environmentally friendly petroleum products. It is deeply important that we recognize the power that people have to invoke change in our society and understand that we all have vastly different experiences. This is what makes Canada great.

Canada produces less than 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Of that, Canada's oil industry produces about 0.3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me be clear. My family and I have a great love for the outdoors and a great aspiration for a clean environment. It is very important that we protect it. I care about the decisions that are being made by the Canadian government. By adding red tape and buying fossil fuels from countries that do not take the same environmental protections as we do, we are supporting unsafe and environmentally damaging practices.

I fear that Bill C-235 in its current form will effectively harm the resource industry in Canada even further and rob the world of the energy securities it so desperately needs.

These policies have also had a frightening destabilizing effect on western democracies in Europe, making them vulnerable to Russia. We will still need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. With the invasion of Ukraine and Europe being held hostage to Russian energy, it has become clear that the world needs more clean, green Canadian energy. We need to be self-sustainable and able to rely on our own resources and our own infrastructure. We do not want to fall victim to energy insecurity the same way Europe has.

Canada has low-cost green energy solutions to prevent the current energy crisis. Alberta and our western neighbours are doing the greening of the economy already. We have solar and wind farms and carbon capture trunk lines, and we produce the cleanest oil and gas in the world. We have the largest coal reserves in the world for making clean, efficient coal gasification in the making of syngas.

Entrepreneurs and provinces do not need federal interference on how to run our industry. We all want the best for our environment for generations to come, but drowning this generation and the future in inflation and red tape is not how we prosper and promote innovation and our economic success.

Bill C-235, again, is another step by our government to kill an industry that would be needed well into the future—whether you want to hear that or not. Wind energy, solar energy and electric cars still depend on fossil fuels. Canadian entrepreneurs are best equipped to solve these problems. Not only does this bill fail to recognize the leaders in this field, but it does nothing but hold those innovations back.

I will leave you with this. We are shipping oil across our oceans when it is unnecessary, considering the abundance of our own resources. We are shipping 500,000 barrels a day up the St. Lawrence River to Quebec refineries, instead of using pipelines and building more pipelines, which are far superior for the environment.

I ask you, why are we continuing to fixate on the west? I strongly believe that if this government truly understood our resources and how they are being produced in the west, it would have a different outlook. I encourage you, and I invite you, to come and understand the truth about Canadian energy.

Bill C-235 seems to be a classic federal overreach, trying to dictate and influence these three western provinces. In simple terms, the federal government needs to step back. We are already a leader. We need to start promoting it. We need to start educating people on the importance of our world-class industry.

Let's start by recognizing and supporting the world's greenest, safest, ethically produced oil right here in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Ness.

We'll now move to Meaghan Seagrave from Bioindustrial Innovation Canada.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Meaghan Seagrave, Executive Director, Bioindustrial Innovation Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the invitation to speak today.

My name is Meaghan Seagrave, and I'm the executive director of Bioindustrial Innovation Canada, also known as BIC.

Before going any further, I would like to acknowledge that I'm joining you today from the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Wolastoqiyik, Mi'kmaq and Passamaquoddy peoples here in New Brunswick.

I'm happy to speak to you about Bill C-235. BIC supports this bill, as it complements our existing work as a not-for-profit and national business accelerator, focused on supporting developers of clean, green and sustainable technologies here in Canada. BIC is leading Canada's circular economy development as the only business accelerator in Canada focused on providing critical strategic investment advice and services to those businesses and developers in the green sustainable space.

BIC has a long track record of success in identifying and supporting early-stage clean-tech and clean energy companies, by focusing on helping them overcome hurdles to commercialization and allowing them to remain and grow here in Canada. BIC has been involved with companies in various sectors, from battery recovery and resource recycling to the identification and growth of value chains for the country's agricultural and forestry biomass.

To date, BIC has invested in 32 early-stage companies and fostered its own investment fund. In the process, our portfolio companies have created over 5,200 jobs and leveraged an additional $350 million in third party investments. We're on track to document greenhouse gas reductions of over 13 megatons by 2030.

We understand that reaching Canada's net-zero targets will take a nationwide effort and concrete initiatives. The proposed framework that promotes economic sustainability, growth and employment in the Prairies aligns well with BIC's current mission to identify, support and grow sustainable business opportunities across the country. The Prairies have an abundant and sustainable biomass resource, which not only is foundational to Canada's food and protein production, but also provides the building blocks in terms of starches, fibres and oils that are critical to the production of bio-based products.

Bill C-235 has the potential to catalyze those opportunities, particularly those rooted in resource and industrial sectors. By ensuring improved alignment among stakeholders, this bill will further enable the region's green transition, focusing on the role of agriculture in the new prairie economy, as well as Canada's largest emerging circular economy.

This bill will support the building of value chains that connect Canada's agriculture and forestry biomass to the advanced manufacturing of biochemicals, biomaterials and biofuels used across a multitude of industries, providing alternatives for greener application in Canada's automotive, aerospace, construction and energy sectors and successfully stimulating a green economy while helping Canada move towards its net-zero targets.

In summary, supporting this bill will effectively support organizations like BIC by way of programs and products that support early-stage businesses and help them innovate and overcome commercialization hurdles.

Decarbonizing Canada's economy is a long-term objective. BIC wants to ensure that all regions get to benefit from a green economy, especially regions like the prairie provinces, with considerable promise to help Canada move towards its net-zero targets. This bill will help the Prairies attract additional investment and business opportunities while creating the jobs of the future for the region.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Ms. Seagrave.

Next we have Bill Bewick from Fairness Alberta for five minutes.

[Bill Bewick, Executive Director, Fairness Alberta]

Thank you to everyone on the committee for the invitation to appear. It really is an honour to be here to share our perspective on this proposed bill concerning greening the prairie economy.

I'd like to start with Fairness Alberta's motto: “Proudly Canadian. Fiercely Albertan.” We are a group of Canadians who believe that Albertans have not been treated fairly by federal economic and fiscal policies. We believe that by respectfully but assertively raising awareness across Canada about the basic facts of these policies, we can persuade a majority to support meaningful reforms.

On the economic side, environment policies around energy are by far the biggest pressure point. Many in Alberta even say that federal policies are so consistently damaging to our natural resource development, and thus our long-term prosperity, that we'd be better off separating. But our members believe there are millions of fair-minded Canadians who just need to hear clear, positive and fact-based messages to understand the legitimate frustration in the west and join our call for policies that truly balance the environment and the economy. These policies should also respect provincial jurisdiction over natural resources.

With Russia's invasion of Ukraine exacerbating inflation pressures and making energy security a topic at the kitchen table, we think this is a critical time to shift opinions about Canada's role as a significant, safe and sustainable world energy supplier.

The bill under consideration has some laudable intentions. Certainly, there are green initiatives that are praiseworthy, such as the potential for federal involvement to stimulate an east-west electrical grid to move Manitoba hydro power west. Certainly, carbon capture and hydrogen plants are happening, and that's great, but the bill misses the mark in some important ways. The red tape that the bill would create is one concern. The bigger one is the focus on transitioning workers away from oil and gas development.

Existing federal policies that are in development and are already in place are, if anything, overly focused on emissions reductions insofar as the aggressive layers upon layers of taxes and regulations are clearly at the expense of the long-term prosperity of Canadians. Having the ministry devote more resources to new reports on greening our economy at the expense of growing our ability to increase responsible global energy security is entirely misdirected.

The biggest red flag in this whole bill is paragraph 3(3)(b), which calls for job “retraining in regions that rely on traditional energy industries to enable them to build a zero-emissions green economy”. Instead of training workers out of the traditional energy sector, we should be adding more of these valuable workers to expand production. They're also needed for building hydrogen plants and carbon capture systems. The world needs our energy. We can be leaders in climate change mitigation while also expanding jobs in this vital industry.

Fairness Alberta recently launched what we call the “unjust transition” campaign to raise awareness and highlight just how unjust it is to transition away from Canada's oil and gas production. Oil production is expected to climb and then hold steady or slightly decline for the next 30 years. Europe has classified natural gas as green energy, since it is so much cleaner than the coal it displaces and is also vital to supplement intermittent renewables like wind and solar. Natural gas production is going to rise over the next 30 years. We're currently the fourth-largest producer.

As I laid out in a Toronto Sun column in September, if we aren't supplying oil and gas, it's just sending more sales, investment and revenue to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and another dozen dictatorships. Twelve of the top 15 national reserves in oil and gas are rated “not free”. Why would we step back and let them thrive?

LNG is the obvious place we need to expand. We have an LNG graphic we use in our campaign, pointing east to energy security for Europe and west to slashing coal emissions in Asia. The moral imperative is clear: We have dropped this ball, and for the sake of energy security and the environment, we need to pick it up and make up for lost time, not retrain its workers.

With the shifting global scene, Canadians are likewise shifting their opinion on LNG. Among recently polled Quebeckers, 60% agreed that Canada should pursue LNG export. That means more workers, not fewer.

New investment in oil and gas brings prosperity and opportunity in particular to indigenous communities. It does it better than any other present option. True indigenous partnerships are now the norm in any new investments in the sector. These investments are going to create good-paying jobs in many communities across the Prairies and massive revenues to all orders of government.

There's obviously one big reason the federal government suddenly has a surplus, and that's oil and gas. Last we heard, a lot of eastern provinces really enjoy the large transfer payments that come from the productive parts of the country like Alberta. As we've pointed out before, Albertans sent a net $600 billion more to Ottawa in the last 60 years than was spent back in Alberta. This golden goose can't be sacrificed without economic pain across Canada.

The bill's biggest flaw, then, is in calling on the industry ministry to focus on reporting how they plan to retrain traditional energy workers. It's insulting to Albertans and completely at odds with what Canada should do to help the world: namely, supply more of its energy to reduce global emissions as well as reduce the dependency of nations on petro-dictators.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to the question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bewick.

We'll now move to Mr. Orb from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Raymond Orb, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]

Good afternoon.

My name is Ray Orb. I am the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, known as SARM.

I was born and raised and live in the rural community of Cupar, northeast of Regina, which has a population of about 625 people.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for the opportunity to share our association's thoughts as it studies Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Our membership is made up of Saskatchewan's rural municipal governments. SARM has been the voice of rural Saskatchewan for over 100 years. Today, I'll share the perspective of those we represent by sharing our thoughts on how the proposed bill would impact our livelihood in rural Saskatchewan.

SARM has considered the proposed legislation and does not support it. Upon review, we determined that it will not further the best interests of rural Saskatchewan.

The bill proposes that a consultation framework be built to facilitate the building of a green economy across all prairie provinces. It assumes the interests of all those residing in these provinces to be the same, and that simply isn't going to work. Issues facing rural Saskatchewan are unique to us.

Rural Saskatchewan's economic success and livelihood are a reality because of the uniquely rich and vast landscape it houses. It boasts a wealth of access to some of the most arable land for growing food and to resource-rich lands that house critical natural reserves that the world needs. This has allowed the agriculture, mining and energy sectors to flourish, sectors that could not flourish in an urban setting or, equally, in all prairie provinces. They need access to rural Saskatchewan's unique land base.

When rural Saskatchewan has a problem or requires federal or provincial collaboration, we would like to work with government directly. We don't want to be trapped in a bureaucratic framework that attempts to treat everyone the same. Some of our unique issues include making sure our key sectors aren't stifled by trade agreements, taxes and world politics, while also ensuring access to efficient rail, road and broadband and cellular infrastructure. Issues like the ones facing rural Saskatchewan are not necessarily shared by those living in Calgary, Winnipeg or even Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

In rural Saskatchewan, we are making excellent headway on our own solutions for a greener economy, and we don't require a federal framework.

Saskatchewan has some of the greenest agriculture producers in the world. Most Saskatchewan cropland is zero-till. This means that our producers use a low-disturbance direct seeding system. Not only does zero-till agriculture sink more carbon, but it also reduces soil erosion and the amount of fuel required on farms.

The Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association has been studying carbon sequestration for years. Through their research, they found that Saskatchewan producers sequester 9.64 million tonnes of new carbon dioxide every year over 28 million acres.

Our province announced its own target for renewable energy use in 2015 and set it at 50% by 2030. To help accelerate this target, SARM partnered with the First Nations Power Authority to provide a tool to help our municipalities and first nations navigate the site selection process for renewable energy projects.

As you can clearly see, rural Saskatchewan has unique issues and is already implementing unique solutions, so SARM is opposed to this bill. In essence, this new legislation would try to implement a one-size-fits-all framework that is not going to work.

In closing, on behalf of Saskatchewan's RMs and rural Saskatchewan, I thank the standing committee again for the opportunity. I look forward to continued dialogue and to the upcoming question period.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Orb.

Thanks to all of our witnesses.

We'll start the discussion with MP Stubbs.

Welcome back to the committee. The floor is yours for six minutes.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all of the witnesses for being here today.

Justine, thanks for setting the record straight on oil and gas, and on Alberta. I want to thank you for being here on behalf of your family and your various businesses. I hope that you get the chance to deliver more of your messages to combat these myths about both Alberta and the Canadian energy sector—we have much to be proud of.

Mr. Orb, I entirely agree with your point about the uniqueness of our provinces. As a rural MP, I'm quite confident that you've certainly summarized what I would expect to be the universal, overwhelming majority view of elected rural representatives right across the province of Alberta.

Time being what it is, I will focus my questions on Dr. Bewick. Thank you for being here today to participate.

I have to say, it's pretty wild to hear a former Liberal minister supporting another former Liberal minister's initiative seven years into an existing government about the importance of consulting the Prairie provinces. This is while talking about initiatives that have of course already all happened without the need for this one-size-fits-all, “Ottawa knows best” bureaucratic framework.

Dr. Bewick, I agree entirely with the point you made that this bill is fundamentally insulting to Albertans. I wonder if you might want to expand on issues around fracturing national unity and western alienation, which have been a consequence of this government's anti-energy legislation and regulation. Perhaps you want to share some thoughts in that context about this bill. Also, do you have anything else to say about Alberta and Canadian oil and gas being leaders in environmental stewardship?

[Bill Bewick]

Sure. Thank you.

I get the sense that the bill is trying to ensure that the west gets its share of spending and attention in the decarbonization efforts, but the direction of the spending is problematic.

When anybody hears “retraining workers”, whether it's the cod fisheries or various sectors in the past, that basically means the government is saying, “We're going to regulate your company or industry out of business, but we'll retrain some of your workers and hopefully they'll be okay.” Prairie communities know this will hurt them. It shouldn't be in this bill. Look at the cod fishers in Newfoundland or even the coal workers in Alberta right now. You can't just retrain people to jump into new jobs that will last for 20 years. If you announced that you're going to retrain auto workers in Ontario or dairy farmers in Quebec, you wouldn't get a thank you in response; you would get a panic.

As I've explained, the world really needs our valuable resources more than ever. In addition to the direction being misguided, because it's trying to transition away from this super valuable resource that the world needs more than ever, it also intrudes on our provincial management of resources. It's not just that the federal policies are misguided; it's that they really shouldn't be the ones making some of these decisions. Our Constitution makes it clear that the provinces have the jurisdiction over their resources. These policies are severely impacting our ability to develop them. Provinces recently unanimously joined a challenge of Bill C-69, and the carbon tax was hotly contested in the courts by many provinces.

I did a political philosophy Ph.D. There's a famous change that happened in the Enlightenment. Thomas Hobbes said that the government's role is to keep you safe, and you should obey it as long as it's keeping you safe. Then John Locke came in and said, well, unless the government's taking your property and making it so that you can't make a living. That's also grounds for speaking up and demanding better.

This isn't just a difference of opinion on a political issue; it's a clear attempt to throttle the largest economic sector in the Prairies. That will impoverish us in particular, but it will also impoverish all of Canada. We have to stop talking about transitioning away from oil and gas and start talking about the opportunities for oil and gas to provide immense prosperity for Canadians, help with energy security and help our European allies get out from being under the thumb of Vladimir Putin and Middle East dictators.

If you really care about the environment, the single greatest thing Canada can do to reduce emissions is to get LNG flowing in copious amounts off our west coast so that China isn't producing...all these coal plants it's building. China has announced new coal that will double the oil sands emissions. They announced that in 2020. That's just their new coal. If they were doing LNG instead of that, it would be 50% less in emissions, and much less in other things that are emitted by coal. In particular, the emissions would be reduced by 50%. That would save the entire oil sands, if we could replace their coal with our LNG.

It's becoming more obvious. It's obvious to lots of western Canadians. As I said, 60% of Quebeckers agree that we should be doing LNG. This whole notion that we should be transitioning away from gas is wrong. It's offensive, and it is leading to people wanting to say, “If we can't even produce our resources, why should we be in this country?” We're trying to prevent that. It is an understandable sentiment, and people need to take it seriously.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, it's a bit like talking to a brick wall repeatedly.

Dr. Bewick, you focused on paragraph 3(3)(b) but I wonder if you have any thoughts on any other clauses or if you think there are other priorities that the bill could have, or should have, addressed instead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Unfortunately, Mr. Bewick, we're out of time. It's a very pertinent question, but hopefully you'll get some more time in another round to answer that very important question.

We'll now move to MP Erskine-Smith for six minutes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

I actually want to continue with Mr. Bewick. I was big into political philosophers, although more John Rawls than John Locke, but I appreciate the reference.

I want to start with an area of common ground, because I actually really appreciate your testimony. The testimony from Safety First also emphasized that a barrel of Canadian oil is unquestionably better from a social and environmental perspective than a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia. As a Liberal in Toronto, I think that's exceedingly obvious and I would agree.

I wonder if I could get your agreement on something else. While there are opportunities in the short term, certainly with respect to displacing unethical oil elsewhere, when we look at the longer-term challenge, there are companies, from FedEx to Shell, that are making net-zero commitments by 2050. I wonder if you would agree that the world needs to get to net zero by 2050.

[Bill Bewick]

The oil sands companies have said they will get to net zero by 2050. I think there are a lot of places where net zero could make sense, but net zero is extreme. It's a—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Let's pause.

The energy sector, the companies that have committed to net zero by 2050, do you think that is an extreme commitment by those companies?

[Bill Bewick]

It's a very ambitious commitment. With something like the oil sands, given the opportunities they have to sequester and put in the infrastructure that could be required to achieve that, I believe them that it's attainable, but to expect a net-zero economy overall is extremely ambitious and will no doubt be extremely expensive. There are a lot of places—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Let's pause there.

I think you're right that it's ambitious. I would also say it's ambitious but necessary.

I'm no expert, so let me read from the International Energy Agency's net-zero report. They say, “Changes in energy consumption result in a significant decline in fossil fuel tax revenues.” So that's a challenge on the government side, but it works on the production side.

Yet annual per capita income from oil and natural gas in producer economies falls by about 75%, from USD 1,800 in recent years to USD 450 by the 2030s, which could have knock-on societal effects. Structural reforms and new sources of revenue are needed, even though these are unlikely to compensate fully for the drop in oil and gas income. While traditional supply activities decline, the expertise of the oil and natural gas industry fits well with technologies such as hydrogen, CCUS and offshore wind that are needed to tackle emissions in sectors where reductions are likely to be most challenging.

With or without us, demand is going to significantly change. In their analysis, coal demand declines by 90% in 2050, oil demand declines by 75%, and natural gas demand declines by 55%. If I care about jobs—the workers you care about too—I'd care about fairness for the workers in Alberta unquestionably. I really appreciate the advocacy of my colleague, Shannon Stubbs, on this front.

What I worry about is that we look at a short-term perspective, but when we look at the long-term perspective, there is going to be a transition with or without us. If we care about jobs and workers, why wouldn't we want to look at a green energy economy, a green innovation economy, a green economy overall and ask how we can best support workers going forward, not just in the short term, but in the long term?

[Bill Bewick]

I have never heard reduction estimates for 2050 on that scale.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's not me. That's the International Energy Agency.

[Bill Bewick]

The International Energy Agency says it will plateau at about 100 million barrels a day for the next 30 years. Oil is going to decrease slightly depending on how aggressive people are with new technology—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

What I've just read to you is the International Energy Agency's net-zero report. The very oil companies that you're saying we're holding up as a standard.... They're great Canadian companies, which I think absolutely have much higher ethical and sustainable values than regimes around the world—unquestionably so. I agree with you there.

The very companies that are committed to net zero.... We now have the International Energy Agency saying, “Here's our net-zero report, and here's our analysis for net zero.” These are their numbers. If we take these numbers seriously—

[Bill Bewick]

Those are their numbers if people pursued net zero around the world, but the world isn't doing that.