Evidence of meeting #9 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 production.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to welcome the new members of the committee.
My question is for Mr. Leach.
Mr. Leach, you've done extensive work in this field. I'd like to ask you about your work specifically with the Smart Prosperity Institute and the greening growth partnership.
The institute states—and this is a direct quote—that their vision is a “stronger, cleaner economy that builds a better future for all Canadians. We are dedicated to realizing a thriving economy, healthy environment, and high quality of life, achieved through decoupling environmental harm from economic success.”
In practical terms, I'd be interested in hearing from you what should be some best practices that could be adopted for realizing that vision with success.
4:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Well, I certainly don't speak for Smart Prosperity on their grant as a co-investigator, but certainly, if you want their overall position, I'd encourage you to bring in some of their leadership team to speak.
On a more general question, I think the starting point for any economist is to make sure the costs of production, all of them, are internals of those—and consumption as well—in making the decisions, so that when you decide to produce oil and gas, the emissions, the tailings and the environmental damage associated with that production are not passed on to someone else without you having to pay that freight, and that, as a consumer, those costs are reflected in the prices you pay.
Whether it's carbon pricing or whether it's the acid rain program types of policies that Mr. Angus talked about earlier, I believe, and that had a big impact in your region as well, I believe, those are all examples of things where we've put the cost of environmental damage into the business decision, and that, to me, is always the gateway to that type of linking environmental performance with economic prosperity.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you.
Last September, just before the federal election, you wrote a blog that was entitled, “There's only one climate vote in this election and it's for the Liberals”. You said—again, this will be a direct quote, from your blog—that the “Trudeau government had to fight for every inch of their policy progress in the courts, in the election campaigns of 2015 and 2019, and almost every day in between. And, at every step, they were fighting The Resistance”—that was the term you used—the coalition of conservative provincial premiers and their allies in the opposition and Senate benches in Ottawa committed to stopping progress on climate policy in Canada.”
How do you see federal policy developing efficiently and effectively at the rate we need to see to meet climate goals when continually being challenged by, in your words, the resistance?
4:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Well, I think what's more important is to focus on what you've done and on why I wrote that post, which was exactly as you said: We fought to get these policies into place and we have a full tool kit of what we need to meet Canada's emissions goal. What Canada needs right now is to refine those policies, to strengthen those policies and to get the remaining bits, clean fuels, for example, across the finish line.
The tenor I was taking today was more “we don't need to start another fight”. We don't need to come into another constitutionally fraught regulatory agenda when you already have the tools you need. If I were to look back at that blog post, that's where I would take it.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you.
My next question is for Ms. Levin.
As a government, we're very conscious that individuals and families support themselves through Canada's oil and gas sector. We also know that we need to take urgent action on climate change. With that in mind, can you share with us your thoughts on how we can support a transition for energy workers while we work to meet emissions reduction goals?
4:45 p.m.
Julia Levin Senior Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada
Thank you for that question.
The energy transition is happening whether or not we bury our heads in the sand and listen to oil and gas companies. Our oil and gas will never be the last barrel standing. It's among the most carbon intensive and expensive. That transition is happening. The best thing we can do to support communities and workers is to be honest with them about what's going on and put in place plans, supports and a just transition strategy that the government commits to and that really makes sure that no one is left behind.
We're at a turning point where we can do what we did, for example, with the collapse of the cod industry, pretend it's not happening and not help those workers out, or we can put in place a plan today that brings all of those communities and workers alongside with us. You've heard on this panel from leaders like Gil McGowan from the Alberta Federation of Labour, who had really great suggestions on exactly how those just transition mechanisms need to be built out alongside this oil and gas emissions cap.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
Thank you.
Now we're going to Monsieur Simard.
You will have two and a half minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a quick question for Mr. Marshall.
He said there were four things we could do to bring us closer to our emissions targets. He talked about calling the industry's bluff on emissions intensity. I'd like him to talk more about what he means by the industry's bluff.
February 28th, 2022 / 4:45 p.m.
Manager, National Climate Program, Environmental Defence Canada
The industry has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Achieving that target means reducing per-barrel emissions by 2030. You have to say to the industry:
“Show us the money.”
The industry needs to show the path it's going to take to achieve that target.
Mr. Leach said that per-barrel emissions intensity in Canada was on the rise. It has been for 30 years. The federal government has to do something to make sure those reductions materialize. It needs to happen on an absolute, not per-barrel, basis.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
A few weeks ago, Bruno Detuncq, a professor emeritus, appeared before the committee. He told us that, other than industry-funded studies, no meaningful research had been carried out on carbon capture strategies.
I don't mean to repeat Mr. Angus's quip, which was a good one, but would you say less carbon-intensive oil was equivalent to light cigarettes or diet poutine? Is it a chimera that gives the sector permission to carry on with oil production but in a more favourable light?
Along the same lines, the industry often cites indigenous communities, as though reducing production would be a huge hindrance to their economic development.
Talk about that, if you would.
4:50 p.m.
Manager, National Climate Program, Environmental Defence Canada
The technology has not been shown to be worthwhile in the long term. These emissions come from oil and gas. The important thing to remember is that this covers only 20% of the oil sector's emissions. Only production emissions are captured. Even if the technology were perfect—which is far from being the case—we are talking about just 20% of the emissions that cause climate change. The other 80% is emitted when oil is burned in Canada or elsewhere. The lion's share of Canadian oil is burned outside the country.
We have alternatives: electric vehicles and renewable energy such as batteries. That is the path we should be taking. Carbon capture and storage might be significant for the steel industry, maybe. It might be significant for other industries, but we have zero-emission alternatives to oil and gas.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John Aldag
That's great. Thank you.
Mr. Angus, it's over to you. You have two and a half minutes. Everybody else ran the clock a little bit, pushed it out, so I'll cut you a little bit of slack here.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Langlois-Bertrand, I'd like to ask you a question. When I read the Canada Energy Regulator's predictions for oil production in Canada, factoring in the carbon price—he's factoring in at least an extra one million barrels a year up to 2050—in one scenario, there will be either as much oil production as there is now or there will be just slightly less, so the Prime Minister's claim that we're going to have this major cut by 2030 doesn't really seem very credible to me.
Do you believe that carbon pricing alone is a credible way of ensuring that we meet our targets?
4:50 p.m.
Research Associate, Trottier Energy Institute
Thank you for the question.
I don't. I don't think it's enough. I don't think the industry is—at least according to our own modelling or the CER's modelling, which is completely different. The results are similar in that the lesson to take away is that industry is not responsive enough to the levels of pricing we're talking about. Whether or not that leads automatically to your considering a cap on emissions as the most effective tool is a question I'll leave to you, but certainly the pricing, as we know it now, including that scheduled to 2030, is not enough to take us anywhere near what's needed in terms of reductions here.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
You talk about the industry not being responsive enough to meet the targets that everyone's agreed on, but they certainly are very responsive in getting audiences with the government. I think we counted now 6,800 meetings with the Liberal government. That's like four meetings a day. That's pretty spectacular backroom access. I have not heard anybody from the Liberals talk about an emissions cap since the Prime Minister made the statement, so I'd like to get a clear picture from you.
You say a 60% reduction in levels of oil and gas by 2030 would be what we would need. What would this emissions cap actually look like to ensure it was something credible to the Canadian people?
4:55 p.m.
Research Associate, Trottier Energy Institute
The figure I'm stating is from our last modelling effort. The idea here is to try to optimize what the lowest cost is to get us to the economy-wide 2030 target. In that exercise, we find that by far it's to focus, first and foremost, on the oil and gas sector.
Now, of course, there are other indirect costs. There's a lot of employment to take care of. Many other speakers and I have noted the need to take care of the communities and workers impacted by these measures, but the fact remains that if you don't do it that way, you have to do it some other way, so in other sectors, and that's going to be more expensive. So you can make a choice—
4:55 p.m.
NDP
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
—and I'm pretty much looking for a yes or no.
What we're using right now is not going to get us to the 2030 promises that we made internationally if we're just using what we're using now.
4:55 p.m.
Research Associate, Trottier Energy Institute
No, I don't believe it will.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to all the guests and all my new colleagues around the table. I'm glad we're discussing our shared goal of reducing emissions around the—