Natural Resources Committee on March 21st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Good afternoon, everyone. We have quorum. I will call the meeting to order.

I'd like to welcome everyone to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is continuing its study of a greenhouse gas emissions cap for the oil and gas sector. Today is our sixth of nine meetings with witnesses for this study.

Please note that today we will be meeting in public to hear from our witnesses up until 5 p.m. Then we will go in camera from 5 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. for committee business.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person or remotely using the Zoom application. We ask everybody to note that the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entire committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted while we are in session. Today's proceedings will be televised and made available via the House of Commons website.

I'd like to begin by welcoming Mr. Kurek and Mr. Bragdon to the committee.

Mr. Morrice, it's always good to see you here as well.

Today the health and safety protocols changed in Ontario but not in the House. I've been asked to remind people who are moving about the room in person to put a mask on. When seated and for interventions, members are allowed to take their masks off. People are encouraged but not required to have a mask on when they're not speaking.

For witnesses and members, here are a few rules to help us have an orderly and efficient meeting. Interpretation services are available for the meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French, the language being used in real time. Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice.

For members in the room, it's the same as always. Raise your hand if you'd like to speak. The clerk and I will do our best to keep track of the speaking order. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. We'll do our best to make sure we're balancing who's in person and who's on screen in the order. Before speaking, wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on Zoom, you will have to unmute yourself. When you're done, please mute yourself. In the room here, we have our technical staff who will help with that. All comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

For our guests who are here, if you haven't been in front of a committee before, each member is allocated time for their speaking. They'll usually direct their question to a specific witness. If you have something you would like to say, you can use the “raise hand” function, but let the person asking the questions decide if they're going to involve you in the discussion or not. It's fairly fast-paced, and the members often have specific things they want to get to, so the time generally is left to them to manage. So that's how the process will work.

We also have a handy card system here. When you get down to the last 30 seconds, I raise the yellow flag. When the time is up, I raise the red card. That's simply a sign to wrap up your thoughts. You don't have to stop mid-sentence, but wrap up as quickly as possible so that we can go on to the next person.

With that, I'd like to officially welcome our guests for today.

As individuals, we have Martin Olszynski, associate professor, University of Calgary; Louis-César Pasquier, associate professor, Institut national de la recherche scientifique; Nicholas Rivers, associate professor, University of Ottawa; Charles Séguin, professor, Université du Québec à Montréal; and Andrew Weaver, professor, University of Victoria.

From Mikisew Cree First Nation, we have Melody Lepine, director, who will be speaking, and Benjamin Sey, manager, environmental affairs.

Each witness will have five minutes for opening statements. Using the card system, I'll let you know when your time is up.

With that, we'll turn it right over to Mr. Olszynski.

You can now proceed with your opening statement. You have five minutes.

[Prof. Martin Olszynski, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Perfect. Thank you for that.

I will also mention to our witnesses that Mr. Olszynski spoke at a perfect pace. We have translation going on, so we ask people not to try to pack in as much as they can, because that does make it very challenging for the interpreters. A nice, casual, conversational speed is appreciated.

We'll go now to Monsieur Pasquier.

You'll have five minutes.

[Louis-César Pasquier, Associate Professor, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on capping greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector.

I'm a chemist by training, and my research focuses on the development of environmental technologies to reduce GHG emissions through the diversion of alkaline waste that can capture CO₂. The goal is to provide new products and contribute to a low‑carbon circular economy. For example, I can use mine tailings or construction waste and have them react with CO₂—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

My translation is not working.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry. The translation is mixed up. We're on the French channel for English. Just pause for one second.

Are we good now?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I can hear you now.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'm sorry about that interruption. Please continue.

[Louis-César Pasquier]

Is the sound good? Okay.

For example, I can take mine tailings or construction waste and have them react with CO₂ to create high value‑added materials and new construction materials. So I'm basing my remarks today on that expertise.

This has already been mentioned, but the sixth report of the IPCC, published a few weeks ago, makes a clear observation. According to the IPCC, the cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well‑being and planetary health. The IPCC estimates that any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.

According to the latest inventory, the country's emissions in 2019 were down 1.1% from 2005 levels. While emissions are generally declining or stagnant, emissions from the oil and gas and transportation sectors are increasing significantly. Specifically, emissions from oil and gas extraction increased from 63 million tonnes to 105 million tonnes of CO₂, an increase of 40% due to an increase of almost 200% in production. The emission intensity reduction per unit of hydrocarbon produced is insufficient and a net emission reduction should be sought.

In 2016, the Pan‑Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change was adopted. One of the plans was to reduce emissions from the oil sector by 40% to 45% below 2012 levels by 2025, three years from now. The results show that emissions are up 13%.

Carbon capture, utilization and storage technology, or CCUS, which I am very familiar with, has been put forward by industry players to achieve reduction targets. This technology has been in use in Canada since 2014. According to the latest report from the Global CCS Institute, just over 4 million tonnes of CO₂ is captured annually in Canada. CO₂ comes from the energy sector, and hydrogen and fertilizer production. However, only 1.2 million tonnes of CO₂ is stored, while the rest is used for enhanced oil recovery, which in my view negates any environmental benefit.

Currently, no emissions from oil and gas production and refining are captured or stored in Canada. Projects in development focus on emissions from areas other than those of interest to us today. Only the Edmonton Region Hydrogen HUB identifies petroleum refining as part of its broader portfolio of emissions under consideration.

Therefore, it seems that CCUS will not be the solution for achieving the sector's specific reduction targets in the short term.

Still, CCUS remains a key technology for the energy transition, especially for reducing emissions from hard‑to‑kill industrial sectors, such as cement and steel, and even for bioenergy. CCUS must absolutely dissociate itself from enhanced oil recovery, which makes no sense. CO₂ must be stored in geological reservoirs or used as feedstock to decarbonize supply chains, including construction materials, chemicals and fuels such as methanol.

Considering the too many reduction targets not met in the past and current trends, considering the increase in net production and emissions in the Canadian oil and gas sector, considering the current failure of CCUS to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector, considering the recent observations reported by the IPCC, as well as the urgent need for concrete action, my recommendations are as follows.

First, a cap on emissions from the oil sector must be introduced quickly. The cap could be progressive, but it must definitely meet the reduction targets set out in the Pan‑Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

Second, we need to continue and strengthen carbon pricing to consolidate and stimulate the market in order to accelerate the development of clean technologies, such as CCUS, but separate from the oil industry.

Finally, I recommend an energy transition based on renewable and local energy that will move away from fossil fuels and provide greater security for Canadians in the face of climate and geopolitical tensions, while enabling economic prosperity.

In other words, we aren't talking about not fossil fuel self‑sufficiency, but about truly low‑carbon energy self‑sufficiency.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Pasquier.

We'll go now to Mr. Rivers for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Nicholas Rivers, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

According to Environment and Climate Change Canada's most recent national inventory report, the oil and gas sector produces over a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. As high as that value is, it includes only greenhouse gases emitted during production of oil and gas, and not the much larger emissions that are released when oil and gas are eventually combusted for energy. Moreover, since 2005, emissions from the oil and gas sector have grown faster than those of any other sector. Future growth in emissions from the oil and gas sector threatens the possibility for Canada to achieve its climate change targets.

Nevertheless, I do not believe a new mandatory cap on oil and gas sector emissions is required. Instead I believe we can achieve deep cuts in emissions from this and other sectors through continued improvement in existing regulations.

To understand my position, it's important to recognize that oil and gas emissions, along with emissions from other large industries, are already regulated under the federal output-based pricing system as well as provincial carbon pricing systems that cover large emitters. A higher carbon price in these systems results in more incentive to reduce emissions.

In contrast, the oil and gas cap under consideration would likely be implemented using a cap-and-trade approach. In this case, an overall emissions cap would be allocated across all oil and gas producers, who could trade permits with one another to achieve the cap. Just like the existing output-based pricing system, companies would determine how much to reduce emissions based on the prevailing price of emissions permits, otherwise known as the “carbon price”.

In other words, at the level of the individual oil and gas producer, the existing system of output-based regulations and the proposed oil and gas cap both provide incentives to reduce emissions via the same mechanism: a carbon price. My basic argument is that we don't need a new sector cap on emissions since we already have in place a policy that can motivate emission reductions in exactly the same manner as would occur under this proposed policy.

While a sector cap on oil and gas emissions would provide similar incentives to firms as existing regulations, there are two reasons it might be promoted anyway. First, a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector may enable the pursuit of more aggressive emission reductions in this sector than under existing regulations. In my view, however, we should not single out a particular sector for more ambitious emission reductions, which is a costly way to achieve our environmental goals, but instead seek to generate more emission reductions from across all sectors. This can be done by strengthening our existing cross-sectoral regulations.

The second reason a cap on oil and gas might be promoted is that it might provide more certainty of achieving a given emission reduction target in the oil and gas sector. This is true in theory, although in practice cap-and-trade systems typically contain provisions like compliance flexibility or credit banking that reduce the certainty that a particular emission target is reached in any given year.

In other words, there is little to be gained from introducing a new cap on the oil and gas sector that cannot already be achieved by strengthening the existing output-based regulatory system for large industry, and while there is little to be gained, there is a cost associated with introducing a sector cap on oil and gas emissions.

First, there's an administrative cost. Setting up a new cap-and-trade system for the oil and gas sector would require new regulatory resources and there is no guarantee that it could be implemented quickly. With increased climate ambition, there are many demands on regulators, and regulatory time could be better spent.

Second, there is a cost associated with concentrating emission reductions in the oil and gas sector rather than spreading them across all sectors, as under the current output-based regulations.

Third, concentrating emission reductions in one regionally concentrated sector could increase political division associated with climate policy.

Overall, I see little reason to introduce a new cap on oil and gas emissions. Instead, to more quickly reduce oil and gas emissions, I recommend that the federal government continue to revise and strengthen the output-based regulations that reduce emissions both in the oil and gas sector as well as other sectors. Two actions are most critical.

First, the federal government should develop output-based benchmarks and prices that are consistent with 2030 and 2050 emission reduction targets. By 2050, emissions intensity benchmarks should reach zero across all regulated sectors, with limited compliance flexibility. Effectively, this implies a hard cap of zero on all industrial emissions by 2050, not just oil and gas emissions.

Second, the federal government should increase efforts to ensure that provincial large emitter carbon pricing policies achieve the same emission reductions as the federal benchmark.

In sum, the proposed cap on oil and gas emissions is unnecessary. Instead the focus should be on increasing the ambition of our existing regulations for all large emitters.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's great. Thank you for that.

Now we'll move to Mr. Séguin.

You have five minutes.

[Dr. Charles Séguin, Associate Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, it is with great pleasure and some humility that I offer my thoughts on the emissions cap for the oil and gas sector. My views are based on my detailed knowledge of Quebec's cap‑and‑trade emissions system and the economic literature on controlling polluting emissions.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to mitigate climate change, but it is also costly for the companies that produce them. It is this trade‑off between benefits and costs that calls for a gradual reduction over time. Depending on costs, different emitters should reduce their emissions at different rates. Those for whom it is the least costly should do it the fastest; those for whom it is the most expensive, the slowest.

The issue of the costs of reducing emissions is particularly important in the context of climate change. Canada alone cannot hope to significantly change the global climate trajectory, as it is responsible for less than 2% of global emissions. One of the ways we can draw other countries along is to show that it's possible to reduce emissions while maintaining a robust economy, and the better way to do that is to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost.

Ideally, regulations would send a common signal to all GHG emitters and let market forces determine the speed of reductions in each sector of the economy. Current regulations in Canada are far from that ideal. It could even be described as Byzantine. A number of stakeholders have pointed out to this committee the risks of adding a new element to the existing regulatory mix. I share many of their concerns.

Nevertheless, I would like to use my time before the committee to highlight the important elements to be considered, should the cap on emissions for the oil and gas sector be introduced. This approach would be imperfect, but it would still leave room for regulatory choices that could be more or less effective. I have five points to make in this regard.

First, a cap can only be effectively implemented if emissions are properly measured. It's notable that emissions in the oil and gas sector are imperfectly measured, particularly fugitive emissions. It is imperative that the measurement of emissions from the sector be clarified before a cap is put in place.

Second, it is important that a cap be associated with tradable permits, both to send a clear cost signal to emitters through the price of those permits, and to allow emitters to trade permits, thereby reducing the total cost of meeting the cap.

Third, marginal cost of reducing emissions for the oil and gas sector should not be too different, either upwards or downwards, compared to the cost for other sectors of the economy. One way to achieve this goal is to impose limits on the price of permits in the cap‑and‑trade system. Introducing a floor price and a ceiling price, which could move in tandem with the federal carbon tax, would create a virtual connection between the regulated sector and the rest of the economy's emitters. This would avoid excessive differences in carbon prices between sectors.

Fourth, a system applying only to the oil and gas sector should nevertheless seek to cover the broadest possible share of emissions from that sector. A system with broad coverage would promote greater liquidity in the secondary market for permits, which would increase its value. A market with too few players could also suffer from a lack of competition in the acquisition and trading of permits, which would distort their price in the market. To remedy this situation, it would be interesting to open the permit allocation processes, such as auctions, to investors who are not only GHG emitters in the sector.

Fifth, it must be recognized that the oil and gas sector is exposed to the risk of emissions leakage abroad. This is particularly the case for oil, because of the strong capacity of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production. To reduce leakage, emitters can be granted permits free of charge for a fraction of their historical emissions.

The five elements mentioned each have complex issues. In this regard, the federal government could benefit from Quebec's experience with its cap‑and‑trade system, which includes the elements mentioned, including a floor price, investor participation in permit auctions and a dynamic mechanism for allocating free permits.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that simply introducing an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector is no guarantee of success. This cap can be useless, if set too high, or unnecessarily costly, if it is poorly linked to the rest of the greenhouse gas emitting sectors. The devil is in the details, so the details will have to be carefully worked out to avoid the many pitfalls of this cap.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you for your opening comments.

We'll now move to a witness from my beautiful home province of British Columbia, Mr. Weaver.

Let's turn it over to Mr. Weaver for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Andrew Weaver, Professor, University of Victoria, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. It's an enormous honour for me to be here. I'm speaking to you as a scientist who has been working in the field as a climate scientist since the late 1980s. I served as a lead author in the second IPCC assessment, the third IPCC assessment, the fourth IPCC assessment and the fifth IPCC assessment, and numerous other international committees.

Like you, I have some experience also in political decision-making, having served as the leader of the B.C. Green Party, holding the balance of power in a minority government in British Columbia when we put in place CleanBC, the policy plan in British Columbia.

I'm speaking to you largely as a climate scientist today. I want to emphasize some of the historical misconceptions with respect to the carbon cycle, as well as emissions reductions or lack thereof in Canada. For example, we all know that you around the table, the decision-makers of today, have very difficult decisions to make, yet the irony is that you will never have to live the consequences of the decisions you've made, for the warming we have and the climate change over the next decade or so, the next couple of decades, your political lifetime, is in essence in the cards as a direct consequence of inertia in our socio-economic systems. However, the decisions you make today will have a profound effect on the future generations who are not here to be part of the decision-making process. Therefore, fundamentally the question is do we, the present generation, owe anything to future generations in terms of the quality of the environment we leave behind, yes or no? If the answer is yes, you have no choice but to implement bold action today, for failing to do so will lead us to a planet that frankly is in a lot of strife.

The two biggest issues, of course, are geopolitical instability associated with the rapidly changing climate, for which our built environment cannot adapt; and widespread species extinction, which is ongoing as we speak.

Coming to Canada, many people will say that Canada accounts for 2% of the global emissions, or a small player. In actual fact, Canada is the eleventh greatest emitter as a nation in the world, behind countries such as China, India, United States, Germany, Iran and South Korea, ahead of countries such as South Africa, Brazil and many others. Per capita, Canada is, if not the worst, one of the worst developed nations. I'm not counting small petro states such as Qatar or Palau, but in terms of nations.

However, what is also often not understood in the political decision-making process is that it is not the emissions of any given year that matter; the climate system and its response reflects cumulative emissions since pre-industrial times. In the cumulative sense, Canada is the eighth biggest emitter ever.

Canada's emissions since pre-industrial times are on par with those of India, which has a population greater than 38 times our nation's size. Therefore, we cannot as a developed nation, for which we have historically created the problem, point to others and say, “Well, you know, we'll only do this if you do,” because the problem that exists today, those cumulative emissions, is ours and that of other parts of the developed world.

Many have thought that the Kyoto protocol was somehow a failure. I would suggest that the Kyoto protocol, put in place in 1997, was a resounding success. It was a resounding success despite Canada. As you know, Canada joined the Kyoto protocol and then pulled out of it. However, collectively, the Annex B nations, even if you included Canada and the U.S. pulling out, had emissions go 9.9% below 1990 levels when averaged over the 2008-12 period. The Kyoto protocol was targeting 5.2% reductions globally. Some countries such as the U.K. averaged over the 2008-12 period emissions that were 24% below 1990 levels. Canada's shamefully were 16% above 1990 levels.

However, as I mentioned, even with Canada and the U.S. included, the Kyoto target was met. If Canada and the U.S. are excluded, the Kyoto target was met by more than 20% reductions from 1990 levels, averaged over 2008-12.

We know where emissions are coming from in Canada. We know the single biggest provinces of emitters are Alberta and Saskatchewan, and we know which sectors those emissions are coming from. We have per capita emissions, we know exactly where those sectors are, and we cannot ignore said sectors or give preferential treatment to said sectors.

Finally, in terms of further negotiations moving forward, it's absolutely critical that the notion of border tax adjustments also be put on the table, and perhaps a global carbon price to ensure that jurisdictions that show leadership are not left behind economically by being penalized by others in various sectors.

With that, I'll stop and summarize by saying that there is nothing preventing a cap and trade system and carbon pricing from being put in place. In fact, in British Columbia, when we introduced the first carbon pricing in Canada back in the 2008-09 era, we actually had enabling legislation there as well to tackle carbon. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you, Mr. Weaver.

Now, for our final opening statement before we get into our rounds of question, it's Ms. Lepine.

Ms. Lepine, over to you for your five minutes.

[Melody Lepine, Director, Mikisew Cree First Nation]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Melody Lepine, and I'm a member of the Mikisew Cree First Nation. I'm joining you all from Treaty 8 territory in northeastern Alberta, my ancestral homelands of the Cree and Dene, and of my Métis relatives.

I'll just introduce the Mikisew Cree First Nation. We're one of five first nations in this region that are basically heavily impacted by oil sands development. My key position with the Mikisew Cree is as director for government and industry relations, so I oversee the interaction with not only oil sands developers but also policy and regulators such as the federal government. This is an important policy being developed to address a significant impact of climate change.

I'll talk a little about our territory. We come from the Wood Buffalo National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of the world's largest freshwater deltas. Significant impacts of climate change have been felt and seen over decades. This is not new to the federal government and provincial government, I think, as we participated in numerous joint federal and provincial hearings, raising not only the impacts of climate change but also the direct impacts from oil sands development. These include cumulative effects such as impacts on our way of life, our rights and our culture; the loss and decline of important key species such as boreal caribou and medicinal plants; and, most importantly, the our ability to access our traditional lands as we witness the drying of one of the world's largest freshwater deltas, the Peace-Athabasca Delta.

Our submission was shared with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and really highlights some of our concerns about carbon capture, mainly because we feel that more can be done in addressing climate change in developing policy and legislation—not only looking at reducing emissions, but also at other ways of addressing climate change, perhaps by introducing things like an emissions cap.

Additionally, I would add that if the federal government is only going to look at carbon capture, as one example, how does something like that address loss of biodiversity? How does it address the tailings issue, the potential release of tailings?

For us, when we look at things, we look at it from a much broader and cumulative nature. Is there an opportunity to address things like the impacts on our treaty rights, cumulative effects, tailings treatment, loss of biodiversity, potential listing of a world heritage site and an endangered listing? There are many other factors to consider when looking at this.

The Mikisew Cree have called for reductions, and for issues to be addressed to deal with climate change. Many of you know that we are dealing with significant impacts from oil sands development, but climate change is really exacerbating things. We are a small, remote community. Tomorrow, our ice road closes, and it's not only a food security issue and a matter of getting goods to our fly-in remote community. The duration of the season for us to commute and travel to our community is also diminishing. I will also add that it's not only a safety issue. We've had a 2016 wildfire here. We've had floods in this area. We're also seeing unforeseen impacts such as those events happening more frequently.

I guess my overall ask is that there be an opportunity here to protect our treaty rights. There's an opportunity here to protect our way of life and to deal with cumulative impacts, deal with the loss in biodiversity such as the woodland caribou, which are really deteriorating before our eyes. We've had a 50% reduction in the population of caribou, likely due to the impacts of the oil sands development, but also impacts from climate change.

Is there a way to address all of these things? Yes, it's by dealing with climate change and effective policy to reduce emissions and putting an emissions cap in place as one of the ways. With that I'll just conclude.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Great. Thank you to each of you for your opening comments. I think it sets the stage for a very good conversation today.

Up first, we have Mr. Melillo, for six minutes in this first round.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Allow me to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today to be part of this very important discussion.

I'd like to start with Ms. Lepine, if I may. There has been a lot of very important testimony and insight so far. I'll start with a question not just around the oil and gas sector but around industry more broadly. There has been some previous discussion at the committee given the urgency of the issue we're dealing with, namely climate change.

Would you suggest that when we are investigating a potential emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, there should be a discussion about having, perhaps not the same cap but, a similar cap imposed on other industries, such as concrete or other industries across the country?

[Melody Lepine]

In addition to oil sands, are you asking?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Yes, for all industries.

[Melody Lepine]

I really don't know the answer to that. I would look to my colleagues or the others on the panel, but I would say yes, anything to reduce emissions is a good thing, I think. That's the goal. If it could be applied elsewhere, then I would assume the answer is yes.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay. I certainly appreciate that. I know it's.... We don't expect all witnesses to have all of the answers, but of course, I think we're on the same page where, obviously, it's important that the energy sector and the oil and gas sector continue to innovate and find greener ways of doing this. I just wanted to make the point that there's an opportunity in this discussion to talk about industry in Canada more broadly.

I'd like to ask a bit of a more personal question, for lack of a better term, about your community.

I represent the Kenora riding in northwestern Ontario, which touches treaties 3, 5 and 9. I know there is a real sense of community in the first nations I represent, perhaps more so than in any other communities in my riding, with the importance of traditional land and traditional practices. Given that the oil and gas sector specifically employs many first nations and indigenous people in Alberta, would there be any concern from your point of view that if there were an emissions cap that were to impact production and lead to some job losses and if the transition were not executed in a seamless way, there would be people who have to leave their community for work and lose out on some of those cultural and community aspects of staying in their community?

[Melody Lepine]

That's a great question.

There has to be a transition framework, especially for us northern, isolated indigenous communities. It's not fair to allow us to become highly dependent on an oil and gas sector and then, all of a sudden, shut the lights off and expect us to sustain.... There has to be a transition plan and diversification. We have a lot of other great resources in our region beyond the oil sands. This is where we look to the federal government for support, to allow us to become active stewards within our territory so that we continue to sustain our economic and indigenous cultural way of life.

I think it's a balance. I definitely seek that support for this transition.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

You mentioned as well in your opening remarks the importance of treaty rights. I think that's a very important aspect of this conversation as well. In previous meetings we've talked a lot about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and about consultation and consent. I'd like to ask you, because so many indigenous people and indigenous communities are impacted by the oil and gas sector, if you believe that the government would need to seek the consent of indigenous communities before moving forward with a policy like an emissions cap.