Good morning, Chair, and members of this committee.
I understand that you've all received a copy of my brief, so in the time allotted to me today I will just reiterate the main points.
I've also managed to watch some of your previous hearings and I will address some of the issues I've seen raised.
First, I want to acknowledge Russia's invasion of Ukraine, its tragic and unacceptable toll on the people of Ukraine, and also its emergent influence on energy policy and politics in Canada. Like the vast majority of Canadians, I support economic sanctions and bans on Russian oil and gas.
At the same time, the existential threat of climate change remains. Indeed, climate change is widely understood as a threat multiplier. It makes war and conflict more likely. Consequently, in its response to this and future crises, Canada's government must heed the IPCC's most recent warning that further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future.
Second, Canada, like other countries, has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. The question before this committee, then, is how to get there. More specifically, is an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector necessary or desirable for getting there? You have heard some witnesses say that it is. Others have suggested that existing policy tools could be sufficient if they were made more stringent.
I submit to you that the answer depends on your evaluative framework. All policy tools have their strengths and weaknesses. As one example, while carbon pricing may be the most economically efficient, hard emission caps provide more certainty in terms of reductions. Feasibility and legal certainty are also relevant considerations. From my perspective, and considering recent events especially, a hard, declining emissions cap is an appropriate additional tool in the federal law and policy tool box.
Third, in terms of constitutionality, in my opinion, Parliament's criminal law power provides the necessary jurisdictional anchor for an emissions cap, which could take the form of a regulation under CEPA 1999. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear that section 91.27 of the Constitution Act refers to the criminal law in its widest sense. It can be used to protect both human health and the environment and the exercise of this power is not rendered invalid simply because it affects matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction.
Fourth, and finally, to the extent that the government appears committed to tax credits for CCS, you need a clearer sense of the ledger here. This applies equally to the broader conversation about the role of Canadian oil and gas in the world.
The facts are these: Despite some improvement over the years, the best available evidence suggests that Canada's oil sands are still amongst the most GHG intensive in the world. Oil sands mining has resulted in the creation of 1.4 trillion litres of toxic tailings. Plans to release oil sands-processed water and to reclaim the remaining tailings ponds remain highly uncertain. The estimated environmental liabilities from all of this range from $34 billion to $130 billion, for which less than $1 billion has currently been set aside by industry.
None of this is to suggest that Canadian oil and gas shouldn't compete in the international markets while they exist. They absolutely should, but there is reason to question further subsidies to the sector, bearing in mind current profits in particular.
With that, I will end my remarks.