Natural Resources Committee on May 9th, 2022

[Shannon Joseph]

Our members have many initiatives, including Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and also an initiative called CRIN, the Clean Resource Innovation Network. Our conventional producers are working together in a number of technology initiatives.

I think the thing we're all concerned about is emissions. We believe that we can decouple environmental impacts and emissions growth from the growth in oil production, and we are focused on that. We'll continue to work towards that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

That's the end of the time for that one.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Chahal for his five minutes.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.

I'll start with Mr. Bradley from Electricity Canada.

You mentioned that Canada would need to increase clean electricity by two or three times what we produce by 2050. You talked about the need for planning and infrastructure. Can you talk a little further about what type of planning and infrastructure is required to, number one, produce that clean electricity, but also transmit it across the country?

[Francis Bradley]

Thank you.

Yes, there are challenges in all aspects of this, certainly with respect to generation. The reality is that it is more challenging today than it was 10 years ago to build infrastructure. The challenges of siting, the challenges of seeking approvals, the complexity of this work has simply increased. That's just the reality that we need to deal with, and it's something that everybody in the sector is addressing.

We are going to require, yes, two to three times more clean electricity. It will be a combination of large-scale grid generation and small-scale distributed-energy resources and community-level resources. Much of the infrastructure, though, will also need to be built out as well from a transmission standpoint. The challenge with respect to transmission is that we do not have an effective subnational coordination function for the planning and construction of transmission at a regional basis. These are done at a provincial basis only.

We recently had some research that we commissioned that looked at other jurisdictions that have been more successful at building transmission infrastructure and some lessons learned that we might be able to apply in Canada, and we'll provide that to the committee.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Are you referring to subnational transmission as the interties between provinces?

[Francis Bradley]

Yes, we're talking about interties within regions between provinces, because the regulation right now of electricity is at a provincial level. It is challenging to undertake projects that are regional in nature, so those would be transmission projects.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Joseph, my colleagues have talked about $20 billion that goes to all levels of government. Do you have a breakdown of which provinces—and then municipalities—receive that funding?

I'm from the city of Calgary. In a city like mine, what would be the impact for jobs and our operational revenues at a municipal level, and also for smaller communities, maybe Medicine Hat, for example, or smaller cities such as Red Deer? I'm wondering if the work you've done and that analysis has a further breakdown for provinces and smaller municipalities as well.

[Shannon Joseph]

I'll have to look into that further, because that number includes royalties collected by B.C., Alberta and Newfoundland, and it includes corporate tax revenues and municipal tax revenues. It would be difficult to break those down because, for example, a city like Calgary might get infrastructure money through the province, which gets royalties. We can look at what additional information to provide.

What I can say in terms of the jobs piece is that, for example, in a province like Alberta, I think there are over 15,000 businesses in our supply chain that are just in Alberta. Those are spread across the whole province in terms of jobs, businesses and communities. The industry has a lot of impacts, not just on big cities like Calgary where you'd have our headquarters but also on the smaller communities where some of those suppliers are located.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

I guess if we're doing a study on the just transition we need to understand where the impacts are going to be. I'm glad you raised that, but I think the statistics are needed on this committee to have a better understanding of which communities, small and large across the country, coast to coast to coast, are going to be impacted by the transition.

Mr. McTeague, in your comments, you talked about affordability. You talked about electricity, increasing costs and oil, gas and diesel. As we transition, how do we deal with affordability once we understand that we must go through this transition. What recommendations do you have specifically on affordability for Canadians?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Just so you know, we're at the end of the five minutes, so I'll give you just a minute for a very brief response, please.

[Dan McTeague]

Chair, thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Go easy, go in concert with what technology is available, and do so ensuring that you do no harm to Canadians, their prosperity and their ability to make ends meet.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

It's a balanced approach. I think that's what our government has been doing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

We're going to go to Mr. Simard and then Mr. Angus for two and a half minutes each.

Because it's gone so well today, with no bells or anything else, I have five minutes slotted at the end for the Conservatives and a five-minute slot for the Liberals. I have Mr. McLean and Ms. Dabrusin for those two.

If you don't want it, you have five minutes to chat with your colleagues and figure out if you're taking it or not.

With that, Monsieur Simard, go ahead, please. You have two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Joseph, your answer to a question asked by my colleague Mr. Melillo made me raise my eyebrows, as you said that GNL Québec's Énergie Saguenay project was on hold.

Did I understand correctly?

[Shannon Joseph]

A decision has been made on the project, but I know there is some interest in—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

There is some interest! However, some institutions in Quebec, including the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, have clearly stated that liquefied natural gas was not a transitional energy source. You may have your own studies, but for BAPE, liquefied natural gas is not a transitional energy source. The institution's conclusions clearly state that the disadvantages of that kind of a project outweigh the benefits from an environmental standpoint.

What is the basis of your view that liquefied natural gas is a transitional energy source?

Do you have studies that show that?

[Shannon Joseph]

A number of studies show that liquefied natural gas is an important energy source that could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a number of countries that are currently dependent on coal and are increasing their coal consumption.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Some studies are saying the opposite—in other words, that it is not an alternative energy source, but an additional form of energy that is bringing down the cost of coal.

Do you have any studies from stakeholders other then ones tied directly to the oil and gas sector?

[Shannon Joseph]

I could send you this information later, but —

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

I will yield the rest of my time to my friend Mr. Morrice.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Mr. Morrice, you have one minute left on the clock.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

I want to ask some questions of Mr. McTeague.

Earlier you warned of going too quickly because it's fashionable. My sense is that we need to move quickly because climate scientists tell us this is required for our survival as a species. However, this made more sense to me when I looked up a letter you wrote on your blog saying that the latest IPCC report is “anti-fossil fuel alarmism” with your concern of “rhetoric and...green bureaucracy and...boondoggle programmes”.

In the most recent budget, the current government allocated $7.1 billion between now and 2030 on carbon capture and storage. We've heard from Iron and Earth that part of their four-part plan is to ensure that we have workers getting upskilled. They've suggested $10 billion in order to direct funds to workers for their training.

Would you not then support reallocating away from carbon capture and towards upskilling of workers?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I'll just say that we have to have a quick answer on this one as well because we're at the end of the two and a half minutes.

[Dan McTeague]

Again.