Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Lapointe for five minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Throughout this discussion, I'm really struck by the notion of balance, the need not to ignore climate change, the need to try and minimize the financial hardship that can create for Canadians and the idea of balance and supply.

My question is for Dr. Hoicka, and the same question goes to Dr. Exner-Pirot.

Can you share your thoughts with this committee on infrastructure and resource balance as we transition to a clean energy economy? How do we ensure that we have enough capacity to heat homes, power vehicles and so on?

[Dr. Christina Hoicka]

On infrastructure, my testimony has really focused on social acceptance, the flip side of that being social rejection of projects. There has been a lot of discussion today around things like blackouts and brownouts, and those have been tied to social acceptance and conflicts around projects that need to be built. If we bring in communities, engage with them and allow them to have revenue and benefits to their communities, social acceptance tends to go up for projects.

In terms of resource balance, there have been studies done for quite a long time that show that, if we really encourage public transportation, active transportation, different options at decarbonizing transportation without entirely relying on personal vehicles at least in cities, that can go a very long way to balance resources and reduce the need for build-out of electrification. It can also support affordability of transportation for many communities and support active lifestyles.

Thank you.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe, for the question. That's a very thoughtful question. We should all be thinking, every day, about how to find this balance.

For me, I think I'm a median Canadian voter. I care about climate change but I also care about affordability. The Canadian public is extremely sensitive to price changes in energy costs. We've seen that in the polling and we've seen that with the carbon tax. We saw it in Europe. There are often political consequences when energy costs go up, so there's a high incentive to keep energy affordable.

How do we get out of this trilemma? I think technology is what has to fix this. People in most parts of the world, unless they are wealthy, will simply not pay more for energy. In many cases, they cannot afford to pay more for energy. That's why I'm quite hopeful that we can get carbon capture costs lower, especially nuclear. I think nuclear has a tremendous runway to get cheaper. If you like energy security, nuclear is great for electricity, but it can also provide industrial heat. That's something that most renewables would have a very hard time doing.

Again, I think there's a role for the federal government to invest in research and development and first-of-a-kinds and new technologies. We actually have a paper with the Transition Accelerator looking at a framework for smart ways of incentivizing this at a federal level and a policy level. That's coming out in the next couple of weeks.

These are great questions. I just want to end by saying that the Canadian public is extremely sensitive to energy price increases. If it isn't affordable to begin with, you won't get very far with your sustainability policies.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. MacDougall and Mr. Kabbara, would you like to weigh in as well?

[Moe Kabbara]

I'll just echo what Dr. Exner-Pirot said. I think for us, it has really been the prioritization of different projects and infrastructure projects and looking at how to make sure the infrastructure unlocks the benefits. It's really thinking of it as an investment.

As I mentioned in my remarks earlier, affordability is key for making sure that households can continue to support the transition and not necessarily feel negatively impacted, but it's not the same across the board. Some provinces will need more support, and those infrastructure investments will be more critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. McLean for five minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

My first question will go to you, Mr. Dion. Your organization, the Canadian Climate Institute, was founded in 2020. Since then, it's been gifted $34 million, up to April of 2023, by this government.

Can you tell me what you're accomplishing that is nothing but an overlap with Environment and Climate Change Canada?

[Jason Dion]

We do a lot of research for all aspects of the climate change challenge, from adaptation to mitigation to clean growth. We provide policy advice, independent advice, to governments on what their options are—how to make them cost-effective, and effective, in terms of reducing emissions, but also affordable and viable.

We have a lot of research that we do—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

I've heard your testimony here. I do find it somewhat biased. I'm wondering if, in that respect, you're little more than a third party propagandist funded by this government.

[Jason Dion]

I wouldn't agree with that assertion. I'm an independent researcher. Our work is independent. Our board is independent. We answer the questions and speak to the priorities that we think are important for Canadians—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I've looked at your board. Your board is the same people who have been funded by this government through various entities. An extra $34 million is going to your entity here.

As I say, I've listened to your data. Some of your data is correct, although it is partial, if I may say that. If you're not looking at this total solution, you are actually presenting Canadians with what I would call “moral hazard”, where they are literally going to freeze in the dark.

Would you agree?

[Jason Dion]

Not at all. I do not believe in an energy transition that leaves people with less means and less ability to afford to feed themselves and to have the energy that they need to rely on. We are very focused on how to oversee and shepherd a transition that can work for Canadians.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

If this $34 million wasn't spent by this government, would Canadians be any further from a solution than they are today?

[Jason Dion]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. I'll move on.

My next question is for Mr. MacDougall of the Pembina Institute.

Mr. MacDougall, the Pembina Institute is an organization that was funded, of course, with good intention, as a charity, again. In the same period of time that I referenced for the Canadian Climate Institute—as a matter of fact, since this government came to power in November 2015—it's been gifted almost $9 million by this government, whereas previously it wasn't.

Are you aware of that?

[Scott MacDougall]

No, I'm sorry. I'm not.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

This government's funded $9 million to your organization. Previously, it was funded almost nothing. Again, it was for all kinds of research that has led almost nowhere to this point in time, but here we are with your insightful input.

Let me go through some things here. Marlo Raynolds ran for the Liberal Party of Canada in 2015 and lost in Alberta, and was subsequently hired as the chief of staff to the Department of the Environment. The clean energy regulations that we're looking at here today are Mr. Raynolds' baby. Since his departure, they've been adjusted three times by the Department of the Environment in order to become more realistic.

They are a dream, they're a fantasy, and they're not going to work.

However, let's go through the data here. January 11, the load record in Alberta was 12,384 megawatts and 1,111 of that was provided by wind. On January 13, when the load was no longer there, what happened was wind was no longer available. Alberta ended up in almost an electricity shortage. You're trying to tell me, with your data points you've given me here today, that 12,384 megawatts is going to be completely provided by wind and solar? At what point in the future?

[Scott MacDougall]

I haven't indicated that I had a timeline for when it would be matched with 100%. Our modelling with the University of Alberta found about 58% could be achievable by 2035.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

There are some mathematicians who actually follow us here. At that point in time, on January 13, 0% was provided by wind and solar. Zero per cent to the power of four is still 0%. Zero per cent was wind and solar.

Again, to the moral hazard question, in the regulations that you're trying to buy into here, are you telling Albertans that they will literally have to freeze in the dark in an episode like what happened on January 13?

[Scott MacDougall]

I'm trying to think if it was the Market Surveillance Administrator or the AESO in Alberta.... When they looked into those incidents—and also when Powerex, B.C.'s neighbour, looked into those incidents—they found layers of causes of those blackouts.

One of the layers was the very high peak demand, which you pointed out. Another layer was a number of unexpected gas-fired generation outages. Another layer, as you point out, was around wind having very low output on those days, as well as solar, of course. It was nighttime when those incidents happened.

They were forecast to have low output, but they were a bit below that. Since then, one of the findings by AESO was that they need to change the way they forecast wind and solar. That's been one positive change.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Monsieur Simard for two and a half minutes.

The floor is yours.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Let me reassure our witnesses. I like my colleague very much, but I do not think that we are going to die in a nuclear winter any time soon. Nor do I believe that nurses or teachers are leaving hospitals or schools because there is no heating, as Mr. Poilievre says. I think that the energy question deserves to be taken more seriously than that nonsense.

I am sure that you probably share the same opinion.

If we want Canada to be more attractive and more competitive when it comes to the energy transition, do you agree that to get there, it will take a carbon pricing mechanism, given what we are experiencing on a global scale?

I would like a short answer from all the witnesses.

[Scott MacDougall]

Yes, I do. I think there's a market failure in place around the impacts and the costs of carbon pollution that can be fixed with carbon pricing.