Industry Committee on Oct. 17th, 2022

[Gil McGowan]

One of the things I'd really like the government to consider, if they move forward with the kind of report contemplated by this legislation, is the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, which was passed by the American Congress over the summer. I can't stress enough for this committee how significant that legislation is for not just the American economy but also the Canadian economy.

It is what policy wonks would call “industrial policy”. It is designed to have the American government put their money where their mouth is when it comes to pivoting towards a changing economy, but it also creates all sorts of opportunities for Canada. Our economies are closely integrated. They're our biggest trading partner. Where they go, frankly, we have to consider going as well, or we get left behind. Whether it's rural Albertans, rural people from Saskatchewan, municipalities, or Alberta industry, we ignore the IRA at our own peril.

In the report with our blueprint for the economy in Alberta that we released last week, we pointed to the example of Peter Lougheed, probably our most respected former Alberta premier. I reminded people that back in the seventies, we were at a similar crossroads. We were running out of conventional oil and gas, and he understood that we had to find something else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. McGowan.

[Gil McGowan]

His suggestion was to pivot towards the oil sands and petrochemicals. He used a mix of public investment and regulation in the public interest to pivot us toward industries that have sustained us for 40 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

[Gil McGowan]

What we're saying is that at this moment, and especially in the context of the IRA—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. McGowan.

[Gil McGowan]

—we need industrial policy to pivot us—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you—

[Gil McGowan]

and I think that's where we'll end up with this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm sorry. We're way over the time.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McGowan, in light of your opening remarks, who do you think speaks for Albertans?

[Gil McGowan]

Who is speaking for Albertans? That's a great question. I think if we're honest with ourselves, we would say that no one person, no one group, and certainly no one party can speak for Albertans. We are, like any other region, a province of diversity—diversity of backgrounds, diversity of occupations and diversity of interests. I think it serves us well to recognize that. That's one of the things we like so much about the process suggested by this bill. It's that it would create a framework for all these diverse groups to bring their ideas to the table, whether it's labour, in my case, or the business community.

You know, the hostility that exists here in Ottawa and on the political stage is not reflective of what's actually happening off the political stage in Alberta. I don't know if you guys noticed this, but Bob and I, industry guy and labour guy, shook hands and exchanged pleasantries before we started here. We've actually worked closely together for years.

When the New Democrats were in power in Alberta, I was appointed as the co-chair with an industry co-chair of what we called the energy diversification advisory committee. Together—labour, business and municipalities—we sat down and mapped out a blueprint that led to many of the incentives that are creating the projects that Mr. Masterson talked about.

There's another Alberta out there, another western Canada out there, where people are chomping at the bit to come together and work together on creative solutions. If there is an impediment, it is those on the political stage who are trying to ramp up anger for political purposes. It's the Trump playbook, right? Get people angry.

This notion that voting for a particular party—

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

I'll take you back to my question, if I may.

[Gil McGowan]

—will save our economy is completely ridiculous.

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

I share many of the opinions you have stated, particularly the one about the urgent need to create a place for consultation and development where people can sit down and discuss matters.

I also recognize the essential role that civil society plays, particularly the trade union community, which you represent and which I welcome. However, I believe that elected representatives play a fundamental role in our democracy and also represent an opinion that is shared by the population.

In the context we are concerned with, Bill C‑235, would you support diversifying Alberta's economy to allow it to benefit from emerging economies? Consequently, why should we favour a top-down approach, as many witnesses have argued since the beginning of our study?

[Bob Masterson]

Listen, I think one of the things I'm hearing here is a sense of distrust, and there's a reasonable reason for some of that. When I think of the investments that our sector has proposed in battery chemicals in Quebec, for instance, every one of the projects has been supported by the federal government. When I think of the automotive investments in Ontario, every major project has been supported by the Government of Canada.

Alberta has set a strategy. We've tried for seven years to get the federal government to go back to the work that Gil's team did under the NDP six years ago now. We tried to get the federal government to understand that this is in everybody's interests and that it has broad-based support. The answer largely has been, “We'll look at opportunities on a case-by-case basis, but don't hold your breath”, so I can understand why the distrust is there.

Look, we have an organization called “PrairiesCan”. They spend money. They set priorities. This is a chance for Parliament to have a deeper dive into the long-term direction of that activity. Where should we be spending money?

The question was, “Shouldn't this bill apply everywhere?” Well, we have economic development agencies everywhere. I would just say that I think there's a bigger disconnect between the Government of Canada, PrairiesCan and the priorities of the Province of Alberta in particular—if not Saskatchewan—than we would see in other parts of the country. It's not for me to say “consultation”, but that's the opportunity this bill provides. It's to better align what the province has already done through successive governments to set low-carbon priorities, diversify the economy and create new industries, and to get Ottawa to understand that and consider it on an equal footing, as it does with battery chemicals in Quebec and the e-transformation of the automotive sector in Ontario. That's the opportunity here today.

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

Everyone agrees on the importance of diversifying the Prairie economy and, in particular, making the energy transition to electrification of transportation and recognizing the importance of solar, geothermal and wind energy, among others.

However, why does the federal government have to be the one to impose consultation, when the initiative to launch a consultation could emerge from Alberta and the process could be done more on a regional scale than under federal control?

[Bob Masterson]

What are people interested in? If we look around this room, 95% of everything that's in this room—95% of all finished goods—is made with the business of chemistry.

Again, there are five pathways that decarbonize the sector. They're all present in Alberta, and they're all being explored. Should that not be in Ottawa's interest to pursue that?

We're debating different things here, but I think Mr. McGowan said it well. You have good alignment between the people at the mine face who are trying to make this activity happen. They know what can be done, they know what could be done and they know what should be done, so it's a question of how we get our governments aligned to make that happen.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse, you have six minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here. This panel has been really interesting, because it's different from what we've heard before.

Here are the choices we have. We could send the bill back for the House of Commons to vote on with a recommendation to do nothing. We could send the bill back to the House of Commons with amendments for the House to decide on, or we could add some recommendations if we wanted to study something instead of doing the bill. We can decide what we want to do, but we have to make decisions.

I want to start with you, Ms. Heron, to make sure that you're not left out virtually. Then I'll move to our panellists here.

Do you support the bill with the amendments that you've suggested? There were some other amendments by Mr. Carr as well. Is your position that you support the bill with the amendments? Yours and Mr. Carr's were to add the minister of agriculture and to change it from 18 months to 12 months. I believe those were the two of significance.

[Cathy Heron]

I'll state right now that this is my personal opinion and I don't have the authority to speak for my association, but yes, with my amendments, I do believe we would support it.

To the previous question about a top-down approach, I see this more as a bottom-up, top-down and meet-in-the-middle kind of approach. I think this is an important conversation that puts Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in a position to steer those kinds of grassroots green economy decisions with the support of the federal government. The other direction would be the federal government imposing restrictions, and this seems to be proposing enabling legislation.

With those amendments.... Actually, it would be my hope that your committee would propose some amendments.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Heron.

I'll go to Mr. Masterson and then to Mr. McGowan.

[Bob Masterson]

If you are going to do this bill, I certainly propose and support the idea of 12 months. At 18 months in today's world, you might as well not do it at all, especially when we look at what's happened with the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. If you're going to do it, do it promptly and do it well.

Again, I don't have an opinion. It's your business as to whether you move ahead. I'm saying that there is a disconnect with the on-the-ground activity that has the potential to generate wealth for generations of Canadians and to deliver low-carbon products around the world. There's a missing link. The link is the attention and alignment from the Government of Canada that are not fully there.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Your position is—