Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I don't want to contradict you, Mr. Jaccard, but do you know the amount of federal government support for the forestry sector? In Quebec alone, this industry generates $20 billion, and the federal government support accounts for 0.3% of this amount. Moreover, 75% of federal support is provided through loans. The forestry sector isn't dependent on the Canadian or Quebec governments, and it can generate profits. It also doesn't generate greenhouse gases.

When we start looking for net‑zero oil, I gather that the Quebec government and the Quebec and Canadian taxpayers will pay for this technology.

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

I'm not talking about forestry. I'm talking about the sectors that produce high levels of GHG emissions. That's why I'm talking about the aluminum industry in Quebec, for example. As part of the transition, the federal government must help these sectors, including in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I see Ms. Collins has her hand up, but we're out of time on this one.

[Colleen Collins]

I wanted to make a comment on carbon capture in particular. The Boundary Dam carbon capture project in Saskatchewan was, indeed, subsidized by the taxpayers of Saskatchewan as ratepayers of SaskPower.

The contributions of that project are not just for capturing carbon in Saskatchewan. That was the first commercial project of that size and already because of that experience, the next large-scale carbon capture project will be 30% cheaper.

This is what—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Ms. Collins, I'm going to have to jump in. We're over time, but Mr. Simard will have another chance, if he wants to come back to that in his next round.

We now are going to go to Mr. Angus for his six minutes.

Mr. Angus, it's over to you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Hastings-Simon, thank you so much, and thank you to all of the other witnesses too.

I've been in politics now for 18 years. This would have been a great discussion in 2004. Now, it's kind of ridiculous: Canada is an outlier, and we get worse every year, but we're always coming up with these great scams about how we are going to be world leaders when we have been identified as world outliers.

We have to start breaking this scam down. Let's talk about emissions.

Ms. Simon, how important is it to count all of the life-cycle emissions of what's coming out of the oil and gas sector, as opposed to just what's coming out of either an oil sands operation or the wellhead?

[Dr. Sara Hastings-Simon]

When you talk about the upstream emissions, it's important to count them all, as you say. Those are both process emissions and things like methane, as well, that I mentioned.

If one is designing a cap around a specific sector, I agree with the comments of the other witnesses, that it should focus on the emissions from that sector, and that the majority of the use of that product and the emissions that arise from the combustion of fossil fuels should be addressed by other policies that target that consumption.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, I believe that we are starting to finally see some global traction on that point, and that's actually.... I would echo something that Professor Jaccard said about the need to consider the fact that we may very soon see a decline in demand for the consumption of Canadian oil and gas arising from that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The International Energy Agency has warned us about future investments in oil and gas being stranded assets. Mark Carney has talked about stranded assets. Canada is a very high-cost producer, and we have highest GHG emissions in the world coming out of our fields and we are making these increases for export. Would it not be better to have an honest conversation about what that emissions cap is going to mean and what we actually have to do, if the rest of the world is shifting?

I know there may be a war in the Middle East, but I also know it's just as likely that the planet is going to burn in the meantime, because that's what we're seeing from the scientific studies. We don't have a lot of time to mess around. How important is it that this is Canada's idea of an economic strategy, if we're talking about a mass expansion of a million barrels a day, identified for an export market that may not be there?

[Dr. Sara Hastings-Simon]

I have two thoughts on that.

I think we are starting to see that companies are not investing in new greenfield production from, for example, the oil sands exactly for that reason. There are questions and a lot of doubt about the future of demand for that product.

I think it is very important for Canada to think about the risk of stranded assets and, in particular, liabilities, which might be left behind as demand for oil and gas declines. It's important to think about that now, while the price of oil is high. This is something that I would encourage the committee to consider.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you for that.

I'm concerned about this. I represent a natural resource region, and the last thing I want to do is tell workers that we're going to be there for them if the market is shifting and we have international obligations. This idea that we're going to continue to increase production heavily but we're going to have an emissions cap...maybe only a Liberal government could come up with something like that.

Mr. Jaccard, do you believe it's possible? The Canada Energy Regulator says we're going to have an increase of a million barrels a day, while the rest of the world is projecting decreases. With an increase of a million barrels a day, are we going to decrease our emissions?

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

As I answered before, you can produce a lot of oil for export and have virtually zero emissions at some point. I guess my point is—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But how much would that cost us? Our emissions have gone up in the oil sands, so these markets for export have the highest GHG emissions in the world, and we're increasing by a million barrels a day. Yes, I guess it's possible that we can have massive increases and somehow emissions are going to go down, but it's not really credible, is it?

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

It really depends where the price of oil is. My answer is similar to Ms. Hastings-Simon's. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't need to go to war with Albertans to tell them, “You have to get your production down.” You say, “You have to get your emissions down,” and then the global economy will determine—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

This is not about going to war. This is about us meeting our international obligations.

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

That's why I focused on emissions.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The emissions from our oil exports are larger than all the domestic emissions from all sectors combined.

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

I answered that question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But don't you think we should be counting how our foreign...? God help the planet. We'll send it to China, but it's not going to count. That's a scam. If we have—

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

So I—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

—more emissions from our exports than all the other sectors combined, I think we have to be honest with Canadians.

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

I'm on the IPCC. The IPCC rightly determined 30 years ago that the emissions should be counted where they happen, because that creates the incentive for people to possibly take petroleum and convert it to hydrogen and bury the CO2.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It certainly creates an incentive to ship it off to China, where they burn it and we can say we're net zero. It's ridiculous.

[Dr. Mark Jaccard]

I disagree with you profoundly.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

We're going to go into our second round. These ones are a bit shorter. First up, for five minutes, we have Mr. Maguire.