Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 78 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Today we meet to resume our study of Canada's clean energy plans in the context of North American energy transformation.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

You'll notice that I am using these two cards. Yellow is a 30-second warning; red means your time is up. It's like a stop sign. Be conscious of that. However, I'll try not to interrupt you in mid-sentence so that you can finish off your last thought.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses who are with us this afternoon.

From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have Mr. Matthew Holmes, senior vice-president of policy and government relations; and Bryan Detchou, senior director of natural resources, environment and sustainability.

From the Canadian Climate Institute, we have Jonathan Arnold, research director of clean growth, by video conference.

From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Bea Bruske, the president, and Alex Callahan, national director of health, safety and environment, by video conference.

From the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, we have Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, senior fellow and director of natural resources, energy and environment, also by video conference.

From the Net-Zero Advisory Body, we have Dan Wicklum, co-chair, by video conference.

Finally, from Unifor Québec, we have Daniel Cloutier, Quebec director, by video conference.

Welcome to the committee. Thank you for taking the time to appear today.

We will begin with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. You have up to five minutes for an opening statement.

Mr. Holmes, you have the floor.

[Matthew Holmes, Senior Vice President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members. It's a pleasure to join you today for this discussion.

My colleague and I are here on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to speak to the steps necessary for Canada to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by the broader North American energy transformation. Getting the clean energy transition right is important to our members. We represent not only the sectors and businesses most involved in this transformation but also the communities across this country that they support.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce represents 200,000 Canadian businesses through more than 400 local, provincial and territorial chambers of commerce and boards of trade and over 120 trade associations. We represent members of all sizes of business, in every sector of the economy, across all regions of the country.

First, let me emphasize that the Canadian Chamber and our members recognize the paramount importance of addressing climate change and meeting our net-zero goals. Canadian businesses of all sizes, from coast to coast to coast, are committed to playing their part in the collective effort to combat climate change.

With that said, our remarks will focus on what Canadian businesses need from the federal government to help Canada achieve its economic and environmental ambitions and position our nation as a leader in the global transition economy. Candidly, what businesses need can be summarized in four words—ambition, clarity, predictability and efficacy.

I will now share the time with my colleague, Bryan Detchou.

[Bryan Detchou, Senior Director, Natural Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Canada is not lacking in ambition. We acknowledge and appreciate the government's firm resolve to conduct global initiatives to combat climate change. However, while Canada may be exceedingly ambitious, only action moves things forward.

Unfortunately, Canada has acquired the reputation of being a country that can't carry through with major undertakings. We have to acknowledge that the only way to achieve our common carbon neutrality objectives is in partnership with the private sector. The global transition to carbon neutral energy consumption is well under way. Canada's capacity to be competitive and to succeed requires adaptability, speed and efficient coordination by governments and industry. Canadian companies will have trouble effecting this transition unless they acquire the necessary infrastructures, regulatory frameworks and funding programs in time.

Right now, Canada's lack of clarity, predictability and efficacy in its approach to environmental policies represents the foremost challenge in achieving the nation's net-zero commitments. These issues impede the ability of businesses to make informed decisions, plan for the long term and allocate resources effectively. They also discourage the foreign direct investment and innovation that our economy needs.

The urgency of 2030 and 2050 net-zero targets requires that the federal government prioritize the following: removing barriers that compromise competitiveness, delay project approvals and place redundant and overly onerous reporting requirements on businesses; reducing permitting timelines to speed up the pace of investment and development of major projects; accelerating the implementation of incentives for clean technology deployment and adoption in Canada through investment tax credits, strategic finance and targeted programming; incentivizing partnerships with indigenous communities that advance decarbonization projects and support economic reconciliation; establishing a modernized, efficient regulatory framework that responds to the needs of industry and respects the jurisdictions of both the federal government and the provinces; and acknowledging regional differences, as geographic, economic and demographic diversity necessitates different policies, practices and investments.

Lastly, I understand the committee continues to examine the competitive challenges the United States Inflation Reduction Act poses for Canada in attracting investment for the domestic net-zero economy. While Canada cannot directly rival the U.S. in terms of financial resources, direct financial support, investment and incentives nonetheless remain an indispensable part of the policy mix. What Canada must also strive for is to turn its regulatory framework and operational efficiency into a competitive strength that will allow us to spearhead the North American energy transformation.

Making these adjustments may restore the confidence Canadian businesses need to make long-term investment decisions, create innovative carbon neutrality technologies and attract the investments the country needs, thereby speeding up its path towards achieving our carbon neutrality ambitions.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement.

We will now go to the Canadian Climate Institute and Mr. Jonathan Arnold, who is appearing by video conference.

[Jonathan Arnold, Research Director, Clean Growth, Canadian Climate Institute]

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with this committee today.

My remarks focus on four policy insights from the Canadian Climate Institute's research. They focus on policy solutions that can keep Canada's economy competitive and resilient as the world shifts to a net-zero future.

The first insight is that the global shift to a low-carbon economy is accelerating and will fundamentally reshape Canada's competitiveness. Over 70 countries have now committed to net zero by mid-century. That covers over 90% of global GDP, 80% of global oil demand and 75% of global natural gas demand.

In financial markets, international investors, managing over $61 trillion in assets, have committed to net zero. At the same time, demand for keystone technologies, such as solar panels, heat pumps, wind turbines and batteries, is growing rapidly as their prices continue to fall.

These trends have flipped the script for Canada's long-term competitiveness. Moving too slowly is now a greater competitive risk than moving too quickly.

The second insight is that Canada can compete in this global low-carbon economy without replicating the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA is perhaps the most concrete example of how the global transition is accelerating, directly affecting international investment choices and competitiveness. However, its scale and magnitude make it impractical for Canada to emulate. Canada's advantage is a portfolio of policy tools, including targeted investment tax credits as well as regulatory and pricing policies. In particular, carbon pricing improves the economics of low-carbon projects and is a powerful draw for investment. Carbon pricing is also cost-effective, with low fiscal costs.

However, businesses and investors need certainty that the carbon price will continue to rise over time and that carbon credits will continue to have market value. Carbon contracts for differences can provide this certainty, making it imperative that the federal government implement this proposed policy.

Governments can also give businesses and investors more certainty by backing the creation of a climate investment taxonomy, which provides a common language around risks that come with the global energy transition. Canada is one of the few G20 countries that do not already have a taxonomy. The framework proposed by the Sustainable Finance Action Council and the Canadian Climate Institute could make Canada a leader in this field.

The third insight is that clean electricity is a huge asset for Canada in the competition for global capital. The availability of clean, affordable electricity is now affecting company decisions about where projects get built. Canada already has a clear head start, with over 80% of its electricity produced with zero emissions today.

However, Canada's electricity systems must keep pace with demand that could double or triple by 2050. The scale of that challenge requires unprecedented policy action. Moving ahead with the federal government's clean electricity standard is critical to creating bigger, cleaner and smarter electricity systems, and the proposed $25 billion in federal investment tax credits can help accelerate private sector investment toward this goal. The federal government can also play a more active role in mobilizing provincial and territorial policy to ensure that Canadian clean electricity remains the backbone of a competitive net-zero economy.

The good news is that the total energy costs for Canadians could actually decrease by 12% in the transition, as more people use more efficient technologies like heat pumps and electric vehicles.

The fourth and final insight is that Canada's oil and gas sector faces unique challenges in the global energy transition but that public policy can play an important role in reducing these risks.

The long-term decline in global demand for fossil fuels creates a dual challenge for Canada. First, the sector must reduce its emissions to stay competitive in a market that will put a premium on low-carbon barrels. Canadian oil and gas producers are some of the most carbon-intensive in the world, and the sector has the fastest-growing emissions in the country. Addressing this challenge will require large-scale investments from oil and gas companies to meet their own climate commitments.

The second part of this challenges pulls in the opposite direction, as declining global demand will undermine this sector's long-term economic viability. These global shifts will increase risks to Canadian workers, communities and governments.

With the right policy package, however, the federal government can support both the short-term and medium-term competitiveness in the oil and gas sector.

Capping oil and gas emissions can help guarantee that sectoral emissions decrease over time. Moving ahead with stronger methane regulations can deliver an estimated one-third of the emissions under a federal cap and and can do so cost-effectively.

The proposed investment tax credits for technologies like carbon capture and storage, as well as moving ahead with things like carbon contracts for differences, can help de-risk low-carbon projects.

Finally, a government-backed climate investment taxonomy can help to scale private investments.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement.

We will go to the Canadian Labour Congress for five minutes.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning to committee members. It's my honour and my pleasure to be here with you this morning.

The Canadian Labour Congress advocates on behalf of workers all across Canada. We know the world is changing, and for Canada and Canadian workers to be global winners, we know that unions need to act and workers need to act.

This committee is looking explicitly at the impacts of President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and what that means for Canada. President Biden has made no secret of the fact that his plan is pro-environment, pro-union and pro-worker. This summer, President Biden celebrated the anniversary of the IRA's passage. His statement mentioned union jobs the same number of times he mentioned the word “climate”.

If Canada is serious about responding to the IRA and studying how Canada creates good union jobs, the first thing we need to do is start speaking the language and talking about good union-specific jobs. Words matter, and we think we need to use those words. Biden is sending a very clear message to workers; Canada isn't sending that message, but we can.

Putting that message into action will mean Canada must create and protect good, safe, well-paid, unionized low-carbon and no-emission jobs in energy and beyond. That means supporting low-carbon industries like critical minerals, low-carbon manufacturing, low-carbon supply chains and so forth. It means taking steps to ensure jobs that are created are good jobs. It will also mean decarbonizing good work and protecting work that is already low-carbon work.

It's good to see that some work of this nature is starting to ensure that investments in decarbonizing are creating good jobs. The labour conditions in Canada's clean economy investment tax credit ensure that workers are paid prevailing wages when companies get government help in investing in hydrogen, clean electricity, clean manufacturing and carbon capture. This is a good start, although the amount of the credit attached to labour conditions should be higher to ensure that labour conditions are actually met.

This committee must recognize it is not a foregone conclusion that low-carbon jobs will be good jobs. For example, until recently, the province of Alberta had some of the most rapid renewable energy growth in the country. While some key jobs, such as crane operators installing wind turbines, are good, safe, unionized jobs, the Alberta government allowed non-qualified workers to work on major solar panels. Once light hits a panel, it's like a generator has been switched on, but instead of ensuring that this work is done safely by qualified, trained electrical workers, it's being done by people with a few weeks of training. This is not good for workers, nor is it good for the public.

Some basic ways to ensure that investing in a low-carbon economy creates good jobs would include ensuring that work is done by qualified workers; using community benefit agreements to set hiring, training, wage and other labour standards; and addressing long-standing labour issues like list availability and penalties for unfair labour practices.

At the same time, Canada must protect good low-carbon jobs. Canada has a strong manufacturing economy that has made important investments in decarbonizing. Those good jobs have to be supported to realize everyone's investments, so whether it's ensuring clean Canadian steel can compete around the world, investing in decarbonizing industries across Canada or ensuring industries like chemical or automotive industries are going to reduce emissions, the best way to have good union jobs is to keep workers in their jobs, within their collective agreements, in their pension plans and have the work be decarbonized around them.

Canada must also apply a regional lens to this work. A worker with a good job is a foundation for their community. The IRA's energy community bonuses attach tax credits when jobs are created in communities that are historically tied to coal. The CLC is working on recommendations for how Canada can support the diversification of the economies of communities tied to high-emissions industries so communities can continue to thrive and to grow.

Whether Canada is protecting and decarbonizing work or supporting the creation of new jobs, it is very clear to us that workers will need the skills to take advantage of these changes. They need to go from the skills they have today to the skills that are going to be needed in a net-zero economy. For some workers, that means retraining, because they're entering new fields. For others, it might mean upskilling because their industry or their jobs are changing. In either case, workers have to be able to access accredited, recognized training that prepares them for that real job. That means investing in accredited, not-for-profit institutions like our world-leading union training centres or our public college systems.

Finally, workers have to be at the table. As the economy changes, the work people do will change. Workers are the experts both in what they do, how they do it and what they need.

We are pleased to see that the sustainable jobs act is being debated. Canada's unions have been vocal in calling for strong labour representation in the sustainable jobs partnership council. We are also supportive of all measures that ensure that workers are at the table discussing and bargaining for changes with their employers, and with governments when appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement. You were right on time.

We'll now go to Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot for five minutes. She is from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and is here by video conference.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, Senior Fellow and Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment Program, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'll focus my remarks on three areas: critical minerals, investment tax credits and nuclear energy.

There is widespread consensus in the resource sector that we are not competitive enough in attracting investment in this country and that Canada's businesses, workers and economy have suffered as a result. While we enjoy a tremendous natural resource endowment, our regulatory and policy environment is inefficient and cannot support the investment and activity required to meet our net-zero goals.

According to NRCan's major projects inventory, the value of projects planned or under construction in Canada since 2015 has fallen by 31%, from $711 billion to $520 billion. This does not account for inflation either.

Critical minerals are the foundation for a transition from an energy system based on fossil fuels to one based on renewables and electrification. The International Energy Association has suggested that we need six times more critical mineral production by 2040 to meet our net-zero goals. For some minerals, like lithium, graphite, cobalt and nickel, it's more than 20 times as much. EVs and electricity networks make up the bulk of this demand.

We are nowhere near increasing mining production enough, globally or domestically, to meet net-zero goals. In fact, in 2022, world mining production was less than it was in 2019.

Far from rapidly increasing mineral production, we have plateaued. Global mining capital expenditures are about two-thirds of their peak, which was in the last commodities boom in 2012. Global mining finance, debt and equity is about one-third of the peak, which was in 2013. The reasons for this include a decline in ore grades, high costs of capital, volatile commodity prices, growing regulatory burdens, supply chain pressures and an aging workforce.

Similarly, in Canada, despite strong rhetorical support, critical minerals production is actually declining, not growing. Natural Resources Canada released its annual mining projection results in mid-April, confirming that we produced less copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, uranium and platinum-group metals in 2022 than we did in 2019.

Canada has tremendous geological potential, but we are not realizing it. Most of our allies are net mineral importers, not exporters. They are depending on us to be a reliable and growing source of minerals, and we are not stepping up.

Next are investment tax credits. ITCs are the most important tool of the Inflation Reduction Act for stimulating investment and growth. To compete, the Canadian federal government has committed to developing ITCs for clean technologies in its last three budgets, but as of today, none are in force. While draft legislation has been published for CCUS and clean technologies, the ITCs for hydrogen, clean manufacturing and clean electricity remain conceptual. These are of limited use to firms or investors considering projects in Canada.

Delays in finalizing the terms and conditions of each ITC through law effectively freeze capital and diminish Canada's ability to achieve its emissions reduction targets. There is also a perception in the business community that Canada's ITCs are overly complex and inconsistent with the objective of using tax policy to attract higher levels of investment. Clawback provisions, different phase-out schedules, narrow and confusing eligibility criteria, knowledge-sharing requirements and high-level auditing risk are just some of the provisions discouraging investment.

Not all is lost. The nuclear sector in Canada shows what's possible when Liberals, Conservatives, the provinces and the federal government have common goals, as well as a regulator that actually supports rather than frustrates development. Canada is emerging as a global leader in the development of advanced reactors as well as in continuing to commercially develop its iconic CANDU technology. We are leveraging our incredible uranium reserves and nuclear expertise not only to decarbonize domestically and help advance the energy security of our allies in eastern Europe and elsewhere, but also to build a globally competitive supply chain around nuclear engineering, advanced manufacturing and services.

Although the Impact Assessment Agency, the IAA, has the regeneracy and regulatory burden, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission itself is world class and actually provides a competitive advantage to our nuclear industry as it develops new reactor models. With that example in mind, there is much more to be done to achieve our clean energy plans. Working Canadians and industry share a goal of a strong economy and a healthy environment, but we will not have either unless our policy and regulatory environment improves.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement.

We will now go to the Net-Zero Advisory Body and Dan Wicklum, who is with us by video conference.

[Dan Wicklum, Co-Chair, Net-Zero Advisory Body]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the committee for the invite.

I want to acknowledge that I'm coming to you from the Treaty 7 region in southern Alberta. This has also been a gathering place for Métis and indigenous peoples other than Treaty 7 signatories.

I'm coming to you as the chair of the Net-Zero Advisory Body. We were created in 2021 under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. We provide the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change with independent advice on interim emission reduction targets, leading up to 2050. We give advice on the most likely pathways that will make sure Canada is a competitive net-zero emissions jurisdiction by 2050, and we also deal with any matter referred to us by the minister. We're a group of 13 members from all regions of Canada, with diverse and established expertise in a range of fields.

I have two main points.

The first one I'm not going to belabour, because everyone who has already spoken to you has made this point up front, and it is that emissions reduction and climate change are no longer just about emissions reduction and climate change: Emissions reduction is now a competitiveness issue. Every major economy on the planet is retooling itself to make sure they can reduce their emissions. They now understand that with this remarkable change in our economy, they have to position themselves to win economically in the future, and if they don't, they will lose. This is the fundamental change that has happened in the last few years. Emissions reduction is now about competitiveness.

The second major point is that there's actually more certainty than uncertainty when it comes to the technologies and approaches that we need in order to get to net zero. For 30 years we've been trying to reduce emissions, and we have many options to do that. We can keep our similar systems; we just have to make them more efficient to reduce emissions.

However, if the objective now is to get to zero emissions under a net-zero definition, rather than just reduce emissions, there are actually many fewer pathways and fewer technologies and technology configurations that can truly be a net-zero society. In some regards, although it's not easier, it is simpler, because the technologies are actually more limited in number. There's more certainty than uncertainty.

Where does this leave Canada? To be clear, the Government of Canada has done much. We've had billions deployed and still have billions in various funds. Budget 2023 introduced many investment tax credits, but we're chasing a moving target. Our major trading partners and our competitors are moving extremely quickly and extremely deliberately to make businesses in their economies able to compete and win in what is a fundamental retooling of the global economy tracking toward net zero.

What would it take for Canada to be more deliberate and to bring together all of the pieces we have into a more coherent strategy?

Number one, we think we need to do a more deliberate analysis of what Canada's unique competitive advantages are. To date, most of our programs and policies have been more of a blanket approach, but we're not going to compete economically in terms of the amount of money the investors spend with larger economies. We need to be more deliberate and targeted. We need to start with that analysis.

We need an approach that aligns the supports and policies with those inherent advantages. The Transition Accelerator and Clean Prosperity have just completed—to the extent possible—an apples-to-apples comparison of U.S. competitiveness versus the Canadian competitive environment in terms of supports, incentives, regulations and policies across a range of technologies that will absolutely be required in a net-zero world: different types of hydrogen, electric vehicle batteries and sustainable aviation fuel. In some cases, we stack up well. In other cases, we don't stack up well at all. Aligning our supports with these Canadian advantages is something that the Net-Zero Advisory Body feels very strongly about.

On aligning the demand side in a confederation that is sometimes difficult to navigate, in some cases we see municipalities taking a very strong leadership role and some provinces taking a very strong leadership role. The federal government also clearly has a foundational role in driving the economy to net zero, but doing better in aligning interests and approaches across three levels of government, along with indigenous interests, although difficult, really seems to be something that we need to put more thought into and make more progress on.

Another thing that we feel very strongly about is having plans that are implementable. For example, if we have a hydrogen strategy for Canada, we feel very strongly that we have to have competitiveness goals embedded in the strategy to understand, for example, how much hydrogen we need to use in Canada, at what price and at what carbon intensity and by when, if we're actually going to track a deliberate pathway to net zero.

It's only with this concept of quantitative competitiveness goals that we can assess whether or not we're making sufficient progress on the economy's key sectors that we need to get to net zero, or whether or not we need to retool or adjust our approach in order to make sufficient progress—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Wicklum, I would ask that you wrap it up, please.

[Dan Wicklum]

My last point is that we think the civil service clearly has a strong role, and we think the modelling and policy capacity could be bolstered, considering the economic stakes we have in this retooling global economy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your opening statement.

We will now go to Unifor Québec and Mr. Daniel Cloutier by video conference.

[Daniel Cloutier, Québec Director, Unifor Québec]

Good morning. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our point of view on the topic of this study.

Unifor members are active in every economic sector, including aerospace, education, fisheries and food, in addition to a number of industry sectors that are facing very rapid transformations in terms of decarbonization and biodiversity protection efforts. From natural resources to manufacturing, every sector is affected. Whether we are talking about vehicle and bus manufacturing, aluminum, energy, aerospace, forestry, and a host of other fields, our members are leading the way.

Major transformations are under way. While these create historic opportunities, they also raise crucial issues for the future of workers. Will the same number of workers be needed for the production of electric vehicles, which have far fewer parts than today's vehicles? With the transformation of aluminum manufacturing technology, will the same number of workers be needed when anodes need replacing only every 30 months rather than 30 days? Will the cost of decarbonization initiatives be taken into consideration for our industries when they have to compete with products from countries that are less environmentally conscious? Will some border procedures be adjusted? Will the new green low-carbon economy result in good, well-paying jobs for workers, and enable them to exercise their right of association?

Unifor firmly supports the transition to clean energy. It is nevertheless very vigilant about the risk that this transformation might become a pretext for doing away with good union jobs. We shouldn't have to choose between the creation of vulnerable new jobs in a “green” economy on the one hand, and the decent retirement provisions, health and safety benefits and years of skills we have all fought so hard to acquire.

The fact is that the transition is not being deployed everywhere in the same way or at the same speed. That's why support mechanisms have to be flexible and adapted to the circumstances.

Unifor believes in a comprehensive approach tied to compensatory and transformative measures. Although support measures may be compensatory and designed to protect things like income security or facilitating requalification, we think that in most instances, support measures will be needed to assist with the transformation of existing activities and jobs and to help workplaces make the transition to decarbonization.

This requires an enormous effort that is going to increase over the coming decades. To meet the challenge, we need a broad and coherent industrial strategy. We need intelligent investment and targeted support measures for workers in key sectors. We have seen how the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act was a game changer in that country and everywhere else. According to estimates by the Climate Power non-governmental organization and others, approximately 300 clean energy projects in more than 40 American states led to the creation of no less than 170,000 jobs. That's impressive.

Canada is not being left behind. In the most recent federal budget, nearly $80 billion has been allocated to similar incentives. From Volkswagen to Northvolt, we can see that some efforts have yielded results. Nevertheless, we believe that these substantial investments of public funds need to have conditions attached.

Last January, during the consultation on clean energy and hydrogen credits, Unifor gave some concrete illustrations of the methods we advocate. One example was the introduction of a salary floor, a requirement for a 10% to 15% percentage of apprentices to offset the labour shortage and ensure the transfer of skills, the need to provide credits for activities other than those linked to the construction of new projects, such as production, in addition to ensuring the neutrality of recipient companies during unionization activities.

To conclude, I wish to underscore just how grateful we are for the language used by the federal government in its last budget. I am speaking more specifically here about the explicit reference to the role of unions as stakeholders in sustainable job initiatives.

Unifor believes that a fair transition must be planned, fuelled by social dialogue, and in particular that it should involve unions. Through the creation of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council, Bill C‑50 gives us an opportunity to walk the talk. To succeed, however, the current wording needs specifically to require that one-third of the seats on the council be for union organizations. It's not too late to get things right and to improve the bill.

Thank you for your attention. I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Cloutier, for your opening remarks, and thank you to all the witnesses for your opening statements.

We'll now go to our first round of questions for six minutes each.

We'll start with Mrs. Shannon Stubbs from the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Ms. Bruske, because I have limited time, I'm wondering if you could make sure, after the committee meeting, to table with the committee the sources and the material and all the information you were talking about in your comments around Alberta.

As Conservatives we've been clear that we want to cut red tape, cut timelines and make Canada competitive, efficient, predictable and certain, and particularly we would like the private sector to make those investments and create all those jobs. To that end, my questions will be directed to private sector proponents.

To the representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and Macdonald-Laurier Institute, you both commented in different ways about the importance of clarity, certainty and predictability.

Could you, at the outset, explain the importance of those factors when it comes to regulatory timelines and business rules in private sector proponents' consideration of what makes a business case for a long-term major multi-million- or multi-billion-dollar investment?

We'll go first to the Chamber of Commerce and then to the MLI.

[Matthew Holmes]

Yes, we need certainty, we need clarity, and we need some transparency. That goes through everything, from the ability of a business to know whether it will be eligible to the speed at which a decision is made. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke compellingly as well of the audit risk and the other factors that come into play in a decision by a business to use private capital.

What we need to do, and what is very important, is to have long-term private sector-funded growth of our net-zero economy. For those decisions to be made over the long-term, there needs to be that certainty. If we look at the IRA in the United States, we see that it was passed in August 2022. We've had a series of signals from government on the sorts of investment tax credits and other program elements that will be introduced. A full year has gone by, and then some. We're now in the fourth quarter of 2023. Investment decisions for 2024 are largely already made.

If we're lucky, major projects may be starting to move in a year's time from now, so we're talking about a two-year to three-year lag. There's already funding coming out of the U.S. for these major projects, and we're that far behind.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It seems, of course, clear that with this lack of certainty, clarity and predictability in our own framework, it would be impossible for Canada to compete when the competitive country has already deployed all of these measures.

If anybody wants to expand more on the differences between the ITC models as you understand them in Canada, which are exclusionary of certain technologies and sectors, and the U.S. model, I think that would be helpful. You may want to comment, if you do, on the importance of production tax credits and how that might stack up, but what's very clear is the reality that the U.S. has already deployed all these efforts, and Canada can't spiral down a race on subsidies, so therefore Canada has to improve every single other thing in our control.

Given the MLI's comments about the reality that the production of critical minerals and metals in 2022 was lower than in 2019, and also knowing that in Canada it takes anywhere from 10 to 25 years for a mine to go from concept to production, would you want to explain more about how this lack of certainty that impacts the business case decisions of private sector performers will actually hamper the deployment of clean technology, hamper private sector clean investment in job creation, and also, as you've articulated, keep Canada from being able to meet the net-zero goals that politicians promised?

[Bryan Detchou]

What I would say to that, as mentioned in our opening statement, is that Canada needs to find its competitive advantage, and that competitive advantage can be our regulatory framework. Many people have mentioned that we're not going to be able to go toe to toe with bigger economies, so our regulatory framework has to be our strength. The positive thing about this is that for the most part, having an efficient regulatory framework will not cost significantly. It might not cost anything at all.

I think those are measures that can allow Canada to be extremely competitive without necessarily having to spend significantly more money, especially—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

That should be moved on aggressively. We are, of course, in the awkward situation of a government being in place for eight years, so there would also be the need for fixing the regulatory mess over which they've presided and which they've partially created.

Perhaps we can also give the representative from the MLI a chance to get in on this discussion before I run out of time, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

I'll try to be quick.

The main challenges I hear are duplication, redundancy, long timelines and political risk. Until there are actually shovels in the ground, there could be a designation or there could be a veto.

What the Business Council of Alberta said eloquently was that ultimately what needs to happen is that a CEO needs to be able to go to their board and say with some certainty what the cost of a project will be and what the timeline of that project will be so that they can make a business case for it and plan for it. That's not possible in Canada right now.

A colleague of mine in New York who is in the nuclear renewable space—not oil and gas—emailed me following the impact assessment decision. He says they're watching. A major multinational firm is watching the IA changes. Right now, they internally call the Impact Assessment Act the “Don't Invest in Canada Act”. I've heard that it's a “Don't Invest in Canada Act”, that we're a banana republic and that there's quiet quitting. The numbers all support this, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're out of time.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

It takes 17.9 years in Canada to build a mine. I wish it was 10 to 15 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Viviane Lapointe from the Liberal Party for six minutes.