Natural Resources committee  We do not feel it is possible, from a structural point of view, to develop CO2 capture or storage quickly enough to continue to maintain or increase oil and gas production in Canada.

Natural Resources committee  That's what we're seeing in our models.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. We can talk about the cement sector, the aluminum sector or others, but the problem is that we don't have the technologies to decarbonize those sectors quickly. Oil and gas production is the only sector where emissions can be reduced by decarbonizing.

Natural Resources committee  The Institut de l'énergie Trottier published a study in 2021 titled “Canadian Energy Outlook 2021: Horizon 2060”. The study says that, in order to meet the 2030 targets, in a techno-economic optimization context and because of the timelines, our modelling showed that we would have to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector by 60% to reach a total reduction of 40% or 45%, as we don't have a solution for transportation, for example.

Natural Resources committee  What we want is for the provinces to work together to facilitate investments. Let's take the example of eastern Canada. We could imagine developing the wind energy sector offshore, in a network that would integrate all the Atlantic provinces, including Quebec, to facilitate deployment and balancing.

Natural Resources committee  If the federal government directly funded, through a Crown corporation, interprovincial links by saying that they would always be there, whether they were used or not, they would quickly be used.

Natural Resources committee  In principle, using less electricity during peak periods helps reduce investment to meet the current demand. That is often how electricity systems are managed: A reduction in consumption is requested, often at specific times.

Natural Resources committee  It's because of the regulation. I mean, there's a pressure on regulations to—

Natural Resources committee  That is the case when it comes to planning.

Natural Resources committee  Modelling is another matter.

Natural Resources committee  You are correct because, even once everything has been decarbonized, there are a number of sectors that we do not know how to decarbonize today. So a lot of CO2 capture and storage will have to be done, and we're talking about hundreds of millions of tonnes a year. So if we choose not to decarbonize this or that by saying that we will rather capture everything, we won't be able to do so.

Natural Resources committee  At the moment, those aren't being done. I'm also co‑founder of the Transition Accelerator, which operates in western Canada. A hydrogen study centre is being piloted in Edmonton. In our view, we certainly need to test the technology and move forward with sufficient scale to see results.

Natural Resources committee  It is an option for electricity, but not for heavy transportation. One example is backup heating. However, it is not yet clear. If we don't test at scale, we won't be able to have a real vision of the role of blue hydrogen in Canada.

Natural Resources committee  If you look at the cost modelling, the cheapest options are wind energy, solar energy and electricity storage. For a real and safe context, however, nuclear power will probably have to be used to guarantee a base.

Natural Resources committee  It should have started yesterday. Canada is already lagging behind other countries. The advantage is that there is a lot of decarbonized electricity in eastern Canada. However, more decarbonization needs to be done. We also need to increase electricity production. To do that, we need a true integrated vision.