I hope he will be able to.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cap.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cap.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:25 p.m.
Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body
We're here testifying on behalf of our very formal role as the Net-Zero Advisory Body. At this point, the Net-Zero Advisory Body has not delved into the specific regulatory or policy implementation regime for an emissions reduction plan, so I wouldn't feel comfortable speaking to that. We simply haven't dealt with it at this point.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Okay.
We're going to go now to Monsieur Simard, who will have six minutes.
It's over to you, Monsieur Simard.
1:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have three or four concerns and I would like to hear what Ms. Ippersiel and Mr. Wicklum have to say about them.
I am having a little difficulty grasping the principle that we have to focus only on capping emissions. I don't understand how the oil and gas sector can increase production and manage to achieve net‑zero emissions. However, the government seems to want to focus simply on capping emissions.
Could you talk about that first? Then I would like to ask you about the technologies that will be used to cap those emissions.
1:30 p.m.
Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body
I'll take that question.
I think it's important to remember that oil and gas—especially oil, but gas as well—are used for providing products, developing products or providing services, frankly, other than fuels that are combusted in an internal combustion engine or a turbine, which result in scope 3 emissions, the emissions that go into the atmosphere, which is the problem of why our planet is heating up.
I'll take oil sands for an example. Bitumen is used for asphalt, so we're actually going to need heavy oil production in a net-zero world. Even EVs and hydrogen trucks need roads.
There are other products that are made out of oil that are frankly not emitting, so I think it's very valid for an oil sector to drive itself to have zero emissions in its production.
1:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Wicklum. I would like to steer you towards my second concern.
You talked about petroleum being used for a whole host of products that we use every day. I am perfectly aware of that. However, we now know that many petroleum-based products can be replaced by lignin, for example, which comes from biomass. We know that it comes at a cost. That is actually why the bioeconomy is not fully developing. The cost is a little too high.
What I find offensive is the way in which billions of dollars are being invested. Let me just give you the one example of the carbon capture strategy in Alberta, which will cost $2.5 billion, of which 57% will come from the governments of Alberta and Canada. That money is not being used for research and development in sectors that have a small carbon footprint to start with.
I find that the logic being used is a little absurd. We are actually investing money and doing research and development in the quest to decarbonize the worst sector of activity in Canada. Meanwhile, we are not supporting sectors of alternative economic activity that could provide a solution that would considerably reduce Canada's carbon footprint.
Do you agree with me on that?
1:30 p.m.
Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body
I would answer by saying that very formally, under the act, the job of the Net-Zero Advisory Body is to advise on interim targets and the most likely pathways to net zero. It's about emissions. If there are ways for us to use our whole suite of natural resources, from agriculture or oil and gas, in ways that are fully compatible with a net-zero society, we think those are legitimate options. Again, for us this is not about making sure no oil and gas is produced; it's absolutely about making sure we have an economy in 2050 that is net zero so that we will be contributing to our international commitments.
1:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
That is not what I am saying. I understand the basis for your mandate, but, if the objective of your mandate is to reduce GHG production, your only goal cannot simply be to decarbonize petroleum. There would be no logic to that. I see an overriding principle, and I would like to hear what you have to say about it.
An overriding principle in ecology is “polluter pays” not “polluter paid”. What you are proposing implies that new clean-energy technologies will take longer to arrive because all the government's resources are going to be invested in decarbonizing petroleum. I cannot see the logic in that.
I understand from your answer that this is not part of your mandate. Am I putting words in your mouth or is that more or less what you wanted to say?
1:30 p.m.
Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body
One of the issues here is the policy and regulatory provisions that need to come into place for all sectors to drive their emissions down as low as they can. The government also, frankly, has to start with the extremely difficult question of how their incentive structure should be set up. If they have limited government resources, which they do, where are their investments and incentives best placed across the full suite of emissions reduction strategies for every sector?
I'll just note again that much of what we're talking about here are emissions associated with oil and gas production, but most of the emissions that are associated with the oil and gas, the full value chain, come from Scope 3. They come from burning them, especially through heating buildings and moving goods around the landscape using internal combustion engines. So the government has to—
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
I'm sorry, Monsieur Simard, but we're out of time for this round.
We have only one hour, and I want to make sure everybody gets their chance.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you so much.
For me this is perhaps the most important study I've ever been involved in, because we're talking about the future of the planet and the clock is ticking.
You were established—in February 2020, was it?—by legislation to advise the environment minister on acting early and urgently. When did you begin discussions with the environment minister on the establishment of an emissions cap and what it would entail?
1:35 p.m.
Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body
Actually we were launched in early 2021, but the act that actually made us real was only brought into place in the late summer.
1:35 p.m.
Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body
Having said that, we have been in operation since early 2021.
The first time that we started thinking about a concept of cap and successively stringent targets was when we received the letter from both ministers. That's what kicked off this work.
1:35 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you. That's excellent to know, because I have that letter here dated November 1. Ministers Guilbeault and Wilkinson formally asked you to consider an emissions cap. That's the same day that the Prime Minister stood up and told the world that he had an emissions cap.
I find that kind of extraordinary. I hate that expression about writing things on the back of a napkin, but couldn't the minister at least have called you from the airport before he went? I mean, the Prime Minister stands on the world's stage and says there's an emissions cap plan, and they had never bothered to ask you to look into it. Don't you think that raises questions about our credibility?
1:35 p.m.
Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body
I think that when you take a look at our terms of reference, you see that it says we are to “advise the government on numerical targets”.