Natural Resources committee  We haven't discussed that particular question. One thing I would say is that—

Natural Resources committee  A big concern for us is refining. The Alberta cap does not apply to the refining industry. My guess is that the federal government will want to extend it to cover refining as well.

Natural Resources committee  It's clear that the framework developed by the previous Alberta government forms the basis of the federal government's climate policy. We see that on carbon pricing, on output-based allocations, and now we're also seeing it with the emissions cap. As I said in my opening remarks, the emissions cap was not just welcomed but advocated for by the industry itself.

Natural Resources committee  These are early days for the federal government. They've made a commitment to an emissions cap and they're starting conversations. We haven't taken a firm position on what we'd like to see from the federal government in terms of the cap, other than to say that we're okay with the idea.

Natural Resources committee  Interestingly, that cap was never fully implemented. The regulations were never promulgated, so it's sort of a notional cap more than anything. To be honest, the goal here is to do our part to address climate change and reduce emissions. The important thing is that the cap has to be clear and declining over time to give industry an opportunity to respond and correct.

Natural Resources committee  The short answer is yes. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but it is less emissions intensive. There is a role to play, for example, in using natural gas as a feedstock for petrochemicals. That could be part of the transition, but I think the focus should be on what I call “safe bet” transition technology, with things that are already invented, like solar, wind, batteries, EVs and methane reduction.

Natural Resources committee  We feel strongly that it needs to be a shared responsibility, especially when we're talking about setting national goals for emissions reduction. If the federal government is introducing legislation that will have an impact on our jobs and our communities in Alberta, then they have a responsibility to help us deal with the fallout.

Natural Resources committee  Those are great questions. In terms of a plan, it's imperative. I talked about the distinction between just transition for worker adjustment and just transition for economic transformation. They both need plans. That's especially true if we're talking about transforming the economy to generate economic activity to replace oil....

Natural Resources committee  You can't have a just transition without workers and, I would suggest, a dedicated new transfer from the federal government to provinces that are energy provinces, mostly Alberta, but also Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. We're the ones that are going to make the biggest sacrifices in the transition to a greener economy, and the federal government and other Canadians have to support us through that transition.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, for sure.

Natural Resources committee  It is, without a doubt. If you took a look at the fossil fuel industry in Alberta as a whole, you'd see that we've already seen the phase-out of coal-fired power, which is something I was intimately involved in as president of the Alberta Federation of Labour. I was also co-chair of something called the Coal Transition Coalition, which was a coalition of unions representing people who worked in the coal-fired power sector, both the plants and the coal mines.

Natural Resources committee  I think the first thing we have to do is make a commitment to the concept of just transition, which Ms. Carter has already alluded to. When people talk about just transition, I think some people have different ideas of what it actually is. Some people talk about just transition as adjustment policies for workers who lose their jobs in the affected industries.

Natural Resources committee  Okay, I'll do that.

Natural Resources committee  Okay, thanks very much.

Natural Resources committee  I am.