Thank you very much.
I first want to acknowledge that I am speaking to you today from the Treaty No. 7 lands.
I also want to acknowledge the federal government for a successful engagement approach here; I don't think they are far down the road, and there are lots of opportunities for everybody to participate. It's much appreciated.
My name is Tristan Goodman. I represent the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, whose members develop a substantial amount of oil and natural gas, as well as an increasing amount of renewables across Canada.
Really, the debate and discussion on any GHG emissions cap will likely involve four key components prior to implementation: a policy driver for the cap—why a cap is needed; the policy principles, which I will go over today; determining the specific cap impacts and other aspects of that; and, finally, once that has been moved forward, we will be able to have a broader conversation on the exact mechanisms of how to go about implementing such a cap.
I will focus today in my comments on key design principles and suggest that any emissions cap should involve following six principles.
First, where possible, use existing climate policy frameworks and build on successful results. Federal and provincial policies adopted over the past several years are reducing GHG emissions. Emissions reductions are being achieved at pace, and significant economic activity has been generated because of the investments by the energy industry, among others, which support an expanding domestic clean-tech sector. There is a very substantive growing clean-tech sector in Canada, which I think everybody here would acknowledge is quite positive. As the number of discrete climate policies grow, so does the potential for unintended interactions and policy consequences, thus the importance of using existing policy frameworks where possible.
The second principle is that a market-based approach should be used wherever reasonable or possible. It won't be the only approach, but markets, if nothing else, are ruthlessly efficient, and efficiency is going to be important within the endeavour to move quickly to GHG reductions. Limiting programs to in-sector compliance would limit the sector's ability to drive the clean energy transformation of the Canadian economy.
The third principle is that an emissions cap should be technology neutral and support all subsectors. Climate policy programs should support technologies based on their carbon reduction results. Likewise, no one subsector of the industry should be disadvantaged through policy decisions. All companies, regardless of product or size, should be able to participate in the energy transition.
The fourth principle is carbon leakage, as already mentioned, and any resulting Canadian economic competitiveness concerns should be considered in the policy design. Policy should address carbon leakage to protect domestic economic interests, as well as Canada's monetary policy and balance of trade.
The fifth principle relates to policy predictability. This is what will drive investment. This is probably the most key over the next 12 months. There have to be increased levels of certainty. If you want additional investment, if that's the goal, then we need to make sure these policies are evaluated in a way such that investors can see their long-term implementation. That's what will draw money into the sector. There are many opportunities here, but that would be one of the key points: We have to increase predictability around policy.
The final principle that I would raise is that indigenous reconciliation should be a central consideration to any emissions cap. The future of natural resource development in a Canadian context relies on genuine, respectful and real indigenous reconciliation, and this should be a core design consideration as you move forward on the cap.
Thank you very much.