Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 19 - Evidence - April 3, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 3, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:30 p.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's energy sector (including alternative energy).
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to order for this very special session, which forms part of our ongoing in-depth study of the energy sector with a view to developing a policy and strategic framework for energy in all regions of Canada. We hope to be able to bring greater efficiency, sustainability, productivity and prosperity to all regions of Canada, a country that is an energy powerhouse and is blessed with so many wonderful resources.
The message from around the world sometimes seems negative. One of our goals is to accentuate that we are an energy powerhouse and that we produce energy in a very thoughtful way. Part of our goal is also to enhance and augment the literacy of Canadians, both young and old, on the subject of energy.
I have said it many times, but it bears repeating that in our travels across the country we have found that Canadians tend to take our blessings for granted. When you flip the light switch, on go the lights, with no discussion required. Why do they go on? We do not necessarily teach Thomas Edison 101 in all our schools, so over these three years we have generated a discussion among Canadians. Have we generated it to the extent we wanted to? I would not say that we have been 100 per cent successful, but the National Post now has an ongoing energy section, a dialogue, a website, a Twitter account. That led us not only to feel good about what we were doing but also to look into areas where we may not have been making enough of an impact.
Young Canadians are the future, and this evening we are blessed to have with us some young Canadian high school students from various parts of the country. This is the result of an initiative started some time ago by Senator Mitchell, whom I will ask to speak in a moment. I will first say a few words for the record.
We did learn a bit about social media. We are not sleeping senators; we are busy, hard-working Canadian senators who want to make Canada a better place. I know you folks share that view. Therefore, with our very able support staff, we developed a website dedicated to our study. We also have a Twitter facility, and tonight we will have a chance to see how well it is working, because we will accentuate the exchange with Canadians outside this room.
All of our meetings on this study are televised on the CPAC network. They are also available on the World Wide Web as well as on the special website that I mentioned. I welcome everyone who is sharing this evening with us. I can tell all of you out there in "listener land'' that this will be a unique and fascinating session.
Also, senators have discovered the iPad, or the tablet. The arrival of tablet computers has created new ways of using and accessing information. We all used to be burdened with huge briefcases full of documents just for one hearing of the Senate. We have learned how to upload these documents into our tablets. When the Senate approved the purchase of tablets for all senators in the fall of 2011, it was expected that this new technology would rapidly take on an important role within the Senate. There are many reasons to use tablet computers, but one of the most compelling is the savings associated with using less paper. It is most fitting that the Environment Committee undertake this trial.
The powers that be in the Senate took note and said that there may be something in this for all committees. There are between 16 and 21 standing or special committees of the Senate. It is a busy place. There are 105 senators. We are not just talking about the microcosm of the Energy Committee. It was agreed that we would do a pilot project. Senator Mitchell's office, which is very avant-garde in new technologies, is largely responsible for our committee being chosen to be the locus of this pilot project.
I want to thank you for this, Senator Mitchell.
Beginning on April 24, Senator Mitchell and I encourage all members of the committee who have an iPad or a tablet to access committee documents with it during the meetings.
Without further ado, I want to welcome all of our guests from Queen Elizabeth High School in Edmonton, where this idea originated. It is hard to believe that Senator Mitchell ever went to high school, but it is amazing what he has learned in the school of hard knocks.
We have with us this evening Terrance Godwaldt, Teacher and Coordinator for the Centre for Global Education, Queen Elizabeth High School. Welcome to you and thank you for your involvement. Also with us are Chelsea Baker from Edmonton, Alberta; Travis Dueck from Edson, Alberta; Colton Praill from Ottawa, Ontario; and Brandon Eardley from Montreal, Quebec. Thank you all for your participation in this entire endeavour.
I will now turn the floor over to Senator Mitchell, whose idea this was, working with Mr. Godwaldt.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much. I cannot take credit for this. I must say that it was Terry Godwaldt and his team who arranged this.
I will take a few moments to express my excitement about this. As Senator Angus has said, this is unique, and it is unique for a number of reasons. We have not been able to scour all the historical records, but we think this may be the first time that high school students have presented to a Senate committee as experts, as it were, on a broad policy issue, rather than on an issue that might affect them personally. That makes this a very significant occasion.
Several of us were discussing who has a greater stake in a Canadian energy strategy for the future than those who have the greatest stake in the future, and that is students. Several years ago, in the course of trying to find places where sustainability education was advanced and undertaken, I came across Terry Godwaldt, who, by pure, happy coincidence, was working on behalf of the Edmonton Public School Board out of my former high school, which I actually did attend for three full years, and no more.
We began to talk. It turns out that this program is remarkable in many ways. One is that it uses video conferencing to bring students together all across the world to discuss issues surrounding things like sustainability.
When we said, "Where would we find some students who could do this,'' I went to him. He came up with this great idea that I am not going to explain because he will explain it way better. However, it has implications for bringing ideas together in a modern democratic way, using technology in ways that are just beginning to emerge and using them effectively. It is also significant because we have these young people who have done this process and will present to us. We have students across the country watching and they will send "tweet in'' questions so we can help answer those questions. This is very 21st century. It is great to have you here.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mitchell. In terms of the study we are doing on energy under a very well-defined terms of reference, how does this fit into our study specifically, just so that step is taken?
Senator Mitchell: Our study is for a Canadian energy strategy and all that might mean. I should mention that Saskia Tolsma from my office has worked very closely and does remarkable work. We did not give the students much of a direction at all. We said, "Tell us what you think, from your perspective, should be done with the Canadian energy strategy.'' They have come up through a process of sifting, of defining questions — four of them — which will be more clearly outlined to us, and getting back on information and generating I believe some recommendations or thoughts about what could be done. It turns out I had a bit of an insight this morning that gave me ideas about what they will do. It fits the broad range of what we are looking at very effectively. They have really meshed well with what we need. They will advance our study significantly, not to put any pressure on them.
The Chair: It is over to you, Mr. Godwaldt.
Terrance Godwaldt, Teacher and Coordinator for the Centre for Global Education, Queen Elizabeth High School: Thank you very much. Although it is coordinated by teachers, it is very much a student project, so in that spirit I think we will introduce the project from our students.
Travis Dueck, student, as an individual: My name is Travis Dueck, and on behalf of all Canadian youth I would like to thank you for this opportunity. We are very privileged to be here today presenting to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Mr. Godwaldt will explain in detail the logistics of our project and conference on sustainability next, but first I would like to provide you with the youth's insight towards this project.
The Chair: Could I interrupt you? I apologize. One of the things you may not have been told is that everything you say is being translated by a very competent and able team of official translators, and therefore you could go a little slower. We have all suffered from the speed syndrome, but we learn here, so all of you keep that in mind because you have nice things to say and we do not want to miss them.
Mr. Dueck: Thank you. For the last eight weeks Canadian youth from across the country have been talking and have been getting excited. We have established a collective, voice which we hope to share with you today, and we started this conference on sustainability in regards to energy. When youth defined sustainability at the beginning of our conference, we defined it as a plan to provide long-term economic prosperity and stability for future generations of Canadians while establishing an energy program that has the lowest long-term environmental impact.
Upon our definition we started to realize the magnitude of the topics at hand. As with democracy, we voted. Students chose what they considered to be the four most important aspects of sustainability in regards to Canadian energy. One is the production and refinement of our energy here in Canada exporting the finished goods to the rest of the world. Two is a slow shift to renewable energy, diversifying our economy while building a more sustainable energy future. Three is to see Canada as an international leader in the discussion and consensus sources and uses of energy. Number four is a Canadian strategy, which you mentioned earlier, that makes and commits to national goals the lesson of environmental impact of our energy consumption and production.
We want to cover three main points: We want to cover efficiency in both traditional-source energy and sustainable- source energy. We want to look at Canada's role as an international powerhouse of energy production, and establish a Canadian energy strategy.
Over the course of our eight weeks, we worked together with other students from across Canada. We have seen many ideals, some more realistic than others, and our initial options changed as we discovered the complexity of these issues and established solutions with respect to the economy, the environment and international relations.
Before we get started I would like you all to envision on the wall behind us a wall full of hundreds of faces of the Canadians that will be joining us today via Internet connections, including students from Queen Elizabeth High School in Edmonton, Alberta; Colonel By Secondary School in Ottawa, Ontario; David Suzuki High School in Brampton, Ontario; Centennial Regional High School in Montreal, Quebec; WestShore Centre for Learning & Training in Victoria, B.C.; and my school, Parkland Composite High School in Edson, Alberta.
The Chair: Very good. Now what?
Mr. Godwaldt: Now I get to pipe in. As the good teacher, we always like to hear our voice. Thank you very much for having us, and I want to congratulate you for stepping out and taking a bit of a risk to hear the voice of the youth. This is not only a practice in hearing about energy; it is also a practice in fostering democracy. It is a practice in which we facilitate the conversation between those who are given the power to make decisions and those who will one day be coming and taking positions of leadership and positions in which they in turn will also make decisions. This is very much a process of fostering democracy in youth, letting them know that their voice is being heard.
Before we get into the details of what the youth found out, we thought it would be good to orientate you a little bit to what the conference looked like and how we fostered the engagement of the youth, to make sure that the voices were truly being heard. It all culminated in an event on March 21, but before that, in the month leading up to the conference, student leaders from each province met on a weekly basis to create a common framework in which the conference participants would create a document — which you have in front of you — that represents their perspective on energy in Canada. Working both synchronously via video conference — and I will define that in a second so everyone knows what we are talking about — and asynchronously, which is working separately at different times using a specially designed interactive student portal, they designed critical questions and themes, amassed a bank of relevant resources and created a basic road map which their fellow students would define in detail on March 21.
How exactly did that look? In the beginning of February, we brought together the six schools from across the country from B.C. all the way to Montreal that Travis listed earlier, from both large centres and urban and rural centres that are very much close — those schools that are close to the source of where energy comes from and those schools that are very far and distant. We had an accurate economic, regional and industry-base representation from all of Canada.
They would meet, and out of those six schools they created a group of 40 leaders. These 40 leaders met every week and were given resources. They were given two to five articles that they would read, and then they would also have some technology they were trained in. What we mean when we say they met is that even though one school is in Montreal and one is in B.C., they met via video conference. We have a big screen like that one over there and we would see displayed across the screen each of the schools. Whoever is speaking would come into the forefront and then whoever was not would be around the outside. We created a Canadian national classroom in a very real sense.
In addition to that video conference that is going on we also created a web page like Facebook because we wanted to create a community of learners, a community of leaders around energy. We know that with those communities, what happens here is not just about the meeting that takes place; it is about the relationships that are developed besides that. These leaders were empowered with the task of creating this conference on energy. They were given some very brief direction on how that would look, but they created this in a very real sense.
They would meet every week and every meet they would get more material to read and would be trained on different technologies. Some of these technologies are YouTube, cell phone voting so they could vote on whatever is going on, Google Docs, video conferencing and the like. They would have readings and then they would be trained on some specific technology so they would have discussion boards and blogs. They would use these technologies to share their ideas. A student — maybe Colton over here — would write an essay as a blog in Ottawa, then Travis in Edson would read it and provide comments for him. Then Colton would go back and edit his work, and we are creating this cross- filtering of ideas being shared across the country. Each week they had new information that they researched as well as new technology that they were empowered to share and collaborate together with.
Then it all culminated in the event on March 21. If you look at the second page of your documents, you can see a list of the speakers. Dr. Stephen Murgatroyd, a consultant for many large industries; Dr. Shawn Marshall, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Change; Laurin Liu, the NDP Member of Parliament for Rivière-des-Mille-Îsles; and Premier Alison Redford came in and spoke to the young people and gave them their perspective on the issue.
This is the exciting part. After this, I will hand it over to the kids. In the afternoon, it was not just 40 students who got together but over 300.
The Chair: This is on March 21?
Mr. Godwaldt: Yes. Each of these schools in each of these cities was split into different colours. You cannot just have 300 people talking. Therefore, they were split into green, blue and yellow, and then each city would have a red. These red would split off and they would work on a Google Doc, which is a word processor that, when you write, Senator Peterson, Senator Sibbeston in the Northwest Territories would be able to write with you at the exact same time; you are working on your ideas with your 10 students and then someone else in the Northwest Territories could take these ideas and feed them to my group of reds. Therefore, all these reds across the country are working together, creating the document.
Then at the end of 20 minutes, all the students would stop and they would make a YouTube video. This video was a 60-second clip that bore the essence of everything that the red group was doing. Then everyone would have to watch the other reds from across the country. Then we would go on throughout the conference.
The students would address their critical questions, which they themselves chose, and then they would create these documents. After the day was completed, they would then take the documents and we would break them all down into 20 core ideas. After they created the agenda and the responses to the agenda, they would then vote on those 20 items.
It is really democracy. It is democracy in which we are training them, we are equipping them, and we are giving them the tools to make these decisions. Then they would vote, and we come up with the four key items that you have in front of you.
At this time I would like to hand it over to Chelsea Baker, who will tell us about some of those ideas that they came up with.
The Chair: Not so fast. Democracy being what it is, it includes competition. How did these individuals get chosen to be the lucky ones to come and meet with us today?
Mr. Godwaldt: We knew we had spots for only four. We wanted to have national representation, but we did not just want to choose people from the big cities. We wanted to ensure that we had representation not only from across the country — you will notice we have two representatives from Alberta — but also from someplace like Edson, which is a location for natural gas and forestry. It is very much close to where energy comes from. That diversity helps to inform the "big city folk'' where that energy is from. That is how we chose the four centres. Each city was able to choose —
The Chair: — its person.
Mr. Godwaldt: Yes.
The Chair: A lot of students have been involved in this initiative, but we have boiled it down to these four wonderful folks today. It is kind of an honour for them and it is certainly a privilege for us to meet with the four of you.
Mr. Godwaldt: These four students did exceptional work. We would love to show you some of their work, if you are interested in seeing the Google Docs, the drafting and where this document came from. We would love to share it, but you will see on those documents their signature throughout.
The Chair: We are off and running. We will see the results of their work now, too.
Chelsea Baker, student, as an individual: The youth of Canada voted for four policy initiatives and four vision statements that we felt were most important to us in regard to the future of energy sustainability in our country. If you look at the back of your handout, there are results and statistics. You will notice that an overwhelming number of youth were in favour of a Canadian energy strategy that included both domestic and international affairs.
We realize that the country still relies on traditional energy sources, but we would like to see a move to make those resources more economically and environmentally sustainable. At the same time, we would like a gradual transition towards more environmentally sustainable and renewable resources such as solar and wind. This transition will also allow for a diversification of Canada's energy sector, thereby creating more jobs.
We suggest the possible use of funds from taxation on the energy sector to go towards the research and development of new technologies to make energy production more efficient and more environmentally and economically sustainable. This would include improvements on traditional energy and furthering the development of non-traditional sources.
Taking a look at government involvement, the youth of Canada feel that, for a Canadian energy strategy to be successful, it needs to be facilitated by the government with the federal and provincial jurisdictions working together towards a unified plan. Over three quarters of the youth believe that Canada should create and then commit to national goals that reduce the amounts of environmentally harmful products released and that a gradual shift should be made towards more environmentally sustainable products.
Canada also needs to be seen as a leader in the international community when it comes to the energy sector.
We would also like to point out that the options were there for youth to choose the extreme points of view in terms of rapid change or even complete elimination of traditional energy sources, such as coal, oil and gas. If you look at the numbers in front of you, you will notice that the youth instead chose to be more balanced and realistic to energy that better attends the diverse energy needs within our nation.
Mr. Dueck: I will speak more slowly this time. I am a grade 12 student at Parkland Composite High School in Edson, Alberta. I am here today representing not only the youth of Canada but the youth of Alberta, as well, in respect of sustainability and traditional-source energies and our options and recommendations as the youth of Canada on that issue.
Canadian youth would like to increase the efficiency of Canada's traditional sources of energy, including coal, oil and natural gas, and to explore new international trade partners, giving us a competitive market advantage to increase the value of Canadian petroleum products.
I would like to start with a quotation: "There are only two qualities in the world: efficiency and inefficiency; and only two sorts of people: the efficient and the inefficient.'' That is by George Bernard Shaw. I am proud to say I am a Canadian, and I am honoured to be here today in our nation's capital representing the next generation of Canadians.
Canada is a country that claims to be an international superpower in energy production. Currently, there are 19 refineries in Canada, 16 of which manufacture the full range of petroleum products. There are refineries in every Canadian province, with the exception of Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, and of the 12 companies that operate the refineries in Canada, only Imperial Oil, Shell and Petro-Canada operate more than one refinery and market the petroleum products nationally.
According to Dr. Flynn-Burhoe of Carleton University, Canadians consume on average 1.8 million barrels of oil daily for domestic use with 778,000 barrels originating from international trade partners, including Algeria, the United Kingdom, Nigeria, Norway and Saudi Arabia. Yet we export 1.9 million barrels of oil to the United States daily and buy this oil back directly and indirectly as refined petroleum products.
When claiming the title of an international energy superpower, in our opinion there is no excuse for us to rely on international imports to support our domestic petroleum needs. However, we not saying we want to eliminate the import of international petroleum products. Recognizing the competitive global economy, however, we would like Canadian companies to capitalize on the Canadian market by refining more of our crude resources within our own borders for domestic use and trade.
We need to provide incentives to companies for the manufacturing and refining of petroleum products within Canada for both domestic use and international usage. We need to consider this as an investment, not as a cost, because this stimulation of the economy will allow us to meet new market objectives, which is crucial when entering a more progressive and competitive global energy reality.
As with any change in national policy, regulations or objectives, a slow and comfortable integration has proven to be more successful and increases national prosperity throughout these changes. When the youth were given options between a slow integration of sustainable energy versus a rapid change, 67.4 per cent of Canadian youth surveyed considered a slow integration of efficient technologies one of the key components for success in any form of energy strategy.
As an example, it is currently more cost-effective for us to import our oil from international trade partners than is it for us to pipe it across the country from Western provinces to Atlantic and Eastern Canada. However, this does not provide Canadians with national energy security. With political instability in the regions of our international trade partners, it is not safe to assume importing oil will always be the most cost-effective way to power Eastern Canada.
Representing the youth of Canada and Alberta, we support the creation of a Canadian energy strategy — a collaboration between the provinces and the federal government. We can establish reasonable energy goals, including furthering capacity to transport our oil nationally to Atlantic and Eastern provinces, while establishing infrastructure guaranteeing future energy sustainability for all Canadians. In addition to energy security, these pipelines will allow the export of Canadian oil across the Pacific Ocean to Asia and Europe. By establishing these trade partners, we are not only increasing our market capacity for Canada's export but we increase the value of Canadian oil being exported to the United States via our new-found competitive market advantage.
I would like to tie this back into the quotation at the beginning of my presentation: "There are only two qualities in world: efficiency and inefficiency; and there are only two people in the world: the efficient and the inefficient,'' once again by George Bernard Shaw. We want to challenge Canadians to be more efficient. Instead of setting industry standards that companies will try to achieve, we should make the highest industry standard the universal standard, always striving for excellence.
The youth of Canada want to be efficient, not only in the research and development of the existing, traditional- source energies, but also in the exploration to new, renewable energy solutions, which Ms. Baker will talk about next in her presentation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dueck.
Ms. Baker: I am from Edmonton, Alberta. The youth of Canada, from coast to coast to coast, when given the choice between seeing a gradual shift or an immediate shift from traditional uses of energy to more sustainable uses of energy, decided that a more gradual shift towards sustainable energy would be more realistic.
To achieve this, they would like to see the following implemented as at the federal level: policies and financial assistance for the phasing in of new innovations and creating more efficient ways to use our traditional energy sources in Central and Western Canada, oil and coal energy technologies; also, a greenhouse gas tax mainly focusing on carbon dioxide with the full revenue returned to the industry for research and integration of new innovations in sustainable energy. In addition, we find it important to encourage an increased usage in renewable energy technologies, as well as an increased number of people coming from traditional energy jobs transitioning towards green job. Young Canadians would also like to see Canada take the initiative and become a world leader in sustainable energy.
We recognize these are optimistic goals. However, we truly believe that these are necessary for the survival and prosperity of the nation.
During the day-long conference, a majority of the Canadian students voted that Canada should begin a slow shift towards more sustainable energy, which they deemed necessary in the best interests of our nation. They were given a presentation on the amount of non-renewable energy that is currently being consumed both nationally and internationally. By enforcing a greater standardization of a carbon or a greenhouse gas tax across Canada, we believe that there should be a full return of revenue to industry for research and development into sustainable energies, as well as subsidies to industries and individuals to minimize any possible negative economic consequences like the Alberta model has placed.
Youth of Canada also felt that it would be very important to encourage public awareness on the topic of sustainable energy, making efforts to promote cleaner energy sources through research. It seems most fair to place a carbon tax if people and companies throughout the country were paying the same rate, whether a rate per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions or an added 1 per cent GST to our GST, producing approximately $6.5 billion to $7 billion of revenue invested in greener energy technologies annually. Adding this tax to our GST would be useful in helping Canadians feel as if we are not being taxed for more than we already are because it will all be under one tax, and the government will be putting the extra 1 per cent towards the improvement or development of sustainable energy technologies. Many jurisdictions around the world have passed legislation to create taxes based on carbon dioxide and sulphur oxide emissions with varying stages of success.
With these benefits, the youth of Canada recognize that there are cautions we should take when putting forth this tax. One such example of this is the aviation industry. Finland has investigated the implications of a carbon-based tax on their aviation industry. A greenhouse gas tax would raise ticket prices for consumers, thereby encouraging more overland transport, which is less efficient. For the individual, a greenhouse gas tax will have an impact, increasing the cost for heating and electricity by 5 per cent or more, and these were statistics taken from Environment Canada in 2010.
The renewable energies that Canada would be increasing the use of are ones such as hydro, wind, tidal, solar, nuclear, et cetera, and further refining even these energy methods to produce higher-efficiency outcomes, dependent on each province's geographic location, as well as what natural resources they have at their fingertips. It should then be in the provincial governments' hands to determine which renewable energy resources they would see best fit to use, given our current technologies. There is evidence to show that these sources will provide green jobs for the people who currently have traditional energy jobs who may be worried about finding themselves out of work when it comes to shifting energy technologies.
It has been said that, in the United States, upgrading the U.S. economy to rely less on fossil fuels would create a surge of manufacturing and construction jobs that would include renovating homes and buildings to be more energy- efficient, tapping clean energy sources such as wind and solar to produce more electricity, and building better transit systems and other infrastructure improvements.
A challenge that may be faced is that many citizens who have been out of school for a decade or more likely would not want to go back to school or to a classroom environment to re-educate themselves to be able to work in their new green job if the time ever occurred when they had to give up their traditional energy job. Many of these problems can be resolved with the gradual transition that the youth wish to make. These green jobs could be given to the youth who are just entering secondary education or university or college, offering necessary courses to pursue the career selected in the green job and so retrain young people who are going into more traditional energy paths to do the job in a greener fashion as technology proceeds. Thus, eventually citizens will be greener in the work that they do, whether it is green or traditional energy.
As Mr. Eardley will share with you, Canada is in a good position right now due to the great amount of energy that our country is improving on and renewing and sustaining. The youth of Canada believe that if we begin to take steps towards being more efficient, other countries will follow suit, just as we are modelling other countries' plans.
[Translation]
Brandon Eardley, student, as an individual: Good evening. My name is Brandon Eardley; I am a student at Centennial Regional High School in Montreal. Like my colleagues, I am honoured today to represent the ideas of youth, not only of Quebec, but also of Canada.
As the youth of Canada, we believe that our nation should assume a leadership role in our international discussions on sustainable energy. The state of the environment is a subject that most of us think about. We are in agreement that Canada should begin to make changes in the area and to play the major role of guiding the world towards a future of sustainable energy.
Canada is an energy superpower. About 76 per cent of our electricity already comes from renewable sources. We believe that this places us in an excellent position to develop technologies and to improve the refining of conventional energy sources so that they do less harm to the environment. If we do that, we will be creating international economic opportunities, not problems due to lack of funding.
After the 17th international conference in Durban, as I am sure you are aware, Minister of the Environment Peter Kent explained the reasons for our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. He said that we were removing ourselves from the agreement because major emitters like the United States and China were not part of it. As a result of that, the youth of Canada feel that we now have the responsibility to urge the creation of a new agreement in which action will be the responsibility of all nations. We have moved away from the project based on improving our own environment mainly because we want changes all around the world. It is up to us to present our ideas nationally and internationally.
Mr. Kent went on to explain that Canada had done no work in fulfilling the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol for several years. Canada was only concerned with making the changes necessary to meet our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol up to about 2006.
This reveals a situation whose goal was attainable only with drastic measures that were likely impossible in terms of both the economy and the daily life of Canadians. To avoid a similar situation in the future, we believe, as young people, that a new agreement should set out realistic goals and require a commitment to meet them.
Canada's youth is Canada's future. All across the country, we agree that Canada has the knowledge and the resources necessary to put ourselves in a good position to become a leader in the global discussion on sustainable energy.
We appreciate the fact that the work of this committee involves leaving tomorrow's leaders with a country that is environmentally and economically healthy. A Canadian energy strategy would be another way of putting our country in the forefront of international progress. It would be incredibly beneficial for the development of our economic and environmental goals.
I will now hand the floor over to my colleague Colton.
Colton Praill, student, as an individual: Good evening. I am Colton Praill, I am seventeen years old and I attend Colonel By High School in Ottawa.
As the youth of Canada, our vision is for a Canadian energy strategy that would unite Canada from coast to coast. The Canadian energy strategy would include initiatives based on new and traditional sources of energy that would reduce the effect on the environment, that would not harm the environment. It would also include an assurance of national energy security and, of course, Canada's participation internationally.
The Canadian energy strategy would focus on cooperation between the federal government and provincial governments; it would include the participation of the federal government in the area of renewable resources without doing away with any provincial jurisdiction.
The Canadian energy strategy would use examples and energy policies from other countries such as Denmark in order to create environmental and economic initiatives. Basically, the Canadian energy strategy would focus on harmonizing renewable energy regulations nationally while respecting the desires and the needs of each province and territory.
[English]
The youth of Canada feel that a Canadian energy strategy is required in order to ensure energy security, particularly at a time when there is rising turmoil in the Middle East, from which we get a large portion of our oil.
The creation of this energy strategy could involve, as was discussed by Travis Dueck, the furthering of a TransCanada pipeline. This would ensure that no matter the turmoil in the Middle East or wherever we are getting our oil, we would still be supplied with oil that could be refined in the Atlantic provinces. This strategy is also necessary in order to avert possible negative consequences such as Dutch disease in Canada. If Dutch disease were to occur in Canada, the view would be that the rising economy in Alberta, due to the oil sector, would draw from the Ontario manufacturing economy, and Ontario would go from being a have province to being a have-not province. We would see this happening across the nation.
We would also like the Canadian energy strategy to promote the creation of a new economic sector based on the creation of sustainable energy. This sector could be grown by imposing a minimum percentage tax on all raw materials, mainly oil, that must be refined before being exported, thus putting more money into domestic areas.
Other possible options for this new economic sector could include the creation of numerous subsidies and penalties to tax energy production companies based on their waste in order to promote shifts towards sustainable energy. In addition, we could be taking money from the Canadian carbon tax, as suggested by Ms. Baker, as well as from the federal infrastructure taxations, and giving it to small rural communities, in Alberta for example, that suffer economically due to the boom in the Alberta oil sands.
In a small community like Edson that might be suffering as a result of the oil sands we could install a solar farm or a wind farm and create an economic boom based on the creation of sustainable energy. This does not have to be done in Alberta; we could implement this on a national scale.
However, our main concern is having increased cooperation between the federal and provincial governments clearly defined in the energy strategy. This would require that the provincial governments create regulations that coincide with those created by the federal government. We realize that there are already many cross-jurisdictions and that it gets rather complex. This needs to be simplified if we hope to move forward easily.
We recognize that if Canada is to create an energy strategy that can be implemented nationwide, it cannot and must not be a repeat of the national energy policy created under the Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We clearly saw the alienation of Alberta under that national energy policy, and 49 per cent of the province desired separation from Canada after it. We know the Western provinces are still wary of the creation of a national energy policy, even if we call it the Canadian energy strategy. This needs to be done correctly and with much cooperation.
We cannot create an energy strategy in which the federal government has complete control or jurisdiction over the energy industry. Rather, the federal government needs to take on a role of facilitating the federation so that the federal and provincial governments can work together to create an energy strategy like the one modeled in Denmark. If you wish to further discuss what the role for the federal government should be, we can do so in the question period.
In Denmark, the government has created a number of initiatives that can be duplicated in Canada. For example, the Danish energy policy calls for a doubling of all funding for energy research and development and demonstrations. Alberta has already implemented something like this in an attempt the clean up the oil sands, but this needs to be implemented on a national level as well.
On transport, the objective of the Danish government is that 5.75 per cent of all fuel consumed biofuel, and they hope to have raised this to 10 per cent by 2020. They also made the purchase of all electric cars tax exempt, although that ends this year and is being replaced by all cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells. They have also initiated the creation of numerous offshore wind farms, each of which can generate 200 megawatts at any given time.
In Canada we could create similar transitions very easily, even if we wanted to start off on a smaller scale. In the transportation industry, instead of hydrogen fuel cell cars we could have the creation of natural gas engines and natural-gas gas stations for large vehicles such as 18-wheelers and buses that travel along the TransCanada Highway.
Switzerland has been forced to create an energy sector wherein only 5 per cent of all energy is from thermal sources, so they are sustainable. Fifty-six per cent of their energy comes from hydroelectricity and the rest comes from nuclear power. I realize that this source works best for Switzerland due to its small size and that it would not be the perfect solution for a country as large as Canada. However, the solution need not be implemented on a national level.
If you look at provinces like Ontario or Quebec where we already have a strong amount of power coming from nuclear and hydroelectricity, or Quebec where it is mainly hydroelectric, we could implement the model they have instituted in Switzerland on a provincial level and start off with a Canadian energy strategy that focuses more not on a national level but specializes for each province, so we can unite as a country in this goal for sustainable energy.
In 40 years Denmark has gone from being 100 per cent dependent on the import of foreign oil to now being a global leader and one of the closest countries to reach 100 per cent sustainability, a goal they hope to achieve in 2025.
The federal and provincial governments can do the same, but they need to work together to create energy initiatives like those in Switzerland and Denmark even if on a smaller scale. It will only be through the cooperation and incorporation of a variety of energy strategies, each specialized for the province or territory it will be incorporated into. Also, the creation of numerous energy initiatives based on new and traditional energy sources, like in Alberta, would diminish the effects on the environment without creating a lasting economic footprint on our economy.
We would need the assurance of national energy security, possibly through the creation of another TransCanada pipeline or the furthering of the ones we already have.
Finally, we need to work together so that Canada can hope to create a Canadian energy strategy based on sustainability.
For the past eight weeks we, the Canadian youth, have been working hard to define sustainable energy for you and to come up with ideas and initiatives that can form the Canadian energy strategy.
There were different opinions concerning sustainable energy. I know I struggled a lot with the shift from traditional energy. I know in Alberta how important the oil sands are now, but being from Ontario it did not occur to me at the start and I thought, "Why can we not just shift now in the next 10 years towards sustainable energy and slowly dwindle off with the Albertan oil sands?'' One of my original ideas was to keep the oil sands, but we export the oil and use the profits to fund R & D. However, as I have been researching more and more I realize that is crazy, economically speaking, and that the Alberta economy relies on these oil sands. It made me come to the realization that it should not just be a few who are informed on this topic. It needs to be all of Canada. All of Canada needs to have this information. It is only through education that we have seen the unification of our nation, the education of all students from around Canada. From students in Alberta we see that after decades of being wary they are finally coming together in agreement with this energy strategy, especially with their premier Ms. Redford leading the charge.
We need to see unification in other provinces like Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec that are willing to get on side and strive towards sustainable energy.
As the youth of Canada, we desire the creation of a Canadian energy strategy that would incorporate the ideals we have suggested to you today and that would primarily ensure the security of our environmental future. After all, it is our future we have to look out for.
Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Praill, would you accept an appointment to the Senate?
Mr. Praill: Yes, I would.
The Chair: We let you off there because you were doing so well and had us all with goose bumps. However, we have to give you a little shot here. We are told that in Denmark it is still 57 per cent coal-fired, and you talking about almost 100 per cent clean.
Mr. Praill: That is their goal for 2025. It is difficult because they are still coal-fired, especially when they are importing their energy from other countries during the winter months. They discovered that their economy, especially in the summer months, is based a lot around sustainable energy. When I was reading up on their energy policy on their government website, they were talking about how the Prime Minister of Denmark wanted to shift away from the sustainable energy because it was creating economic problems. Being a country that had to import so much energy, they almost could not justify the price of sustainable energy. However, when they wanted to make that shift they realized their economy — especially in the summer — was so focused around sustainable energy that to shift towards traditional energies would be a step backward economically. They would not be able to make the shift easily.
The Chair: I went to the Copenhagen conference and found they needed more wind at the Copenhagen conference. They had a lot of wind there — 35,000.
The other point you made — part of what we are trying to achieve here is a little bit of interaction between and amongst us — was that it would be great in Canada if we did not have to import as much crude oil from other countries as we are exporting to the U.S. It comes out at almost 1.8, and you were saying we should just pop in a pipeline to bring Alberta oil to Quebec and Atlantic Canada. How do you envisage that happening? Have you thought that through? Clearly this is something we also think is an anomaly in the Canadian picture: We have these incredible resources in certain parts of the country, especially in oil, even though it is a fossil fuel, yet we are importing this dirty oil from these countries. It is probably less clean and not as high quality as from the oil sands.
Mr. Praill: I have thought about that a lot, especially when I was researching it, even deciding if I wanted to bring it up. I looked at my research. The sheer amount of time it would take to get this pipeline up and functional and being profitable would be 25 years, assuming it went through today.
The Chair: Why at this time would it take so long?
Mr. Praill: A lot of it is the bureaucracy, but also the initial price of the pipeline is so large that it takes that long with all the oil being refined in Canada to make it where we have paid off the construction of the pipeline. I was wary of bringing it up.
It was not called the Arab Spring for no reason. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are living amidst revolutions happening daily across the globe, and if we continue to rely mainly on oil from other countries we do not have national energy security.
I will pass you off to Mr. Dueck about that. He knows more than I do.
The Chair: You had all the right buzz words, the right historical framework, and you talked about the unpopularity nationally and the divisive nature of the National Energy Program of the 1980s. Then you said there is still not an appetite for that sort of terminology, like a national energy policy or strategy.
Have you thought about what else we could call it? We senators have been trying to figure out a better name for it. We have also sensed there is an antipathy to using it. In the West it was such a bad time, but we are encouraged by Premier Redford calling for a collaborative energy strategy. However, everyone has not bought into it yet. If you have a better name or a better way to couch it, we would love it.
Mr. Praill: I went with Canadian energy strategy as originally dubbed by Premier Redford solely because she is the premier of Alberta, and that was the province that was mainly affected by the national energy policy. If she can create some force behind it then why not go with that? If that is they want and that will make us unified, I am okay with that.
The Chair: By the way, Mr. Godwaldt, I have a grandson who wants to get a hairdo like yours. He said, "Grandpa, I want spikes like Mr. Godwaldt.'' You will have to tell me later how you do it.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you very much. This has been good, very powerful and quite surprising in some senses. There are a number of themes here that I would like to pursue with the time I have, and maybe if there is more time I can come back.
First, Mr. Praill handed off to Mr. Dueck this issue of east-west pipelines. Then Mr. Dueck alluded to getting our oil out to China and other Pacific Rim markets. Would you elaborate on that a bit? There are the cost issues and there are the processes of getting them approved. Are these things that you have considered and studied?
Mr. Dueck: The first thing I want to talk about in that regard is exporting oil and petroleum products to countries other than the United States. I believe 22 per cent — I am not sure if that is entirely right — of all American oil and natural gas imports come from Canada. That is just something I think I remember, so do not quote me on it. Regardless, we are exporting oil to them at a lower cost than we could be. We really do not currently have a lot of international trade partners we are exporting to. There are plans to export to other nations and other corporations. However, until we establish a way of exporting large amounts of our petroleum products to China and overseas, we do not have the competitive advantage to say to the United States, "We need to increase the price of oil that we are exporting to you because we have other alternatives to sell Canadian oil.'' I think expansion would be good for the economy.
As I explained in the presentation, with regard to national energy security, maybe right now we do not need to have a pipeline that goes across Eastern and Atlantic Canada. However, if something happens politically, in order to sustain and secure Canadian resources for Canadian domestic use, I think it is important to be able to export these resources in large quantities, enough to power a country, to all areas of the country that would need that petroleum energy power.
Senator Mitchell: Anyone else can jump in if you want in any of these questions. Do not feel you are limited.
Mr. Godwaldt: Senator Mitchell, I wonder if part of the issue with respect to pipelines and getting them there, and even building a national consensus, has to do with the process that these students went through themselves.
Mr. Praill shared where he was initially in Ottawa looking out at Alberta and asking himself, "Why cannot the Albertans see this properly and get rid of the oil sands?'' In the course of the month and a half in the process he went through, in the course of the training, the education and the dialogue of bringing Canadians together from B.C. all the way to Montreal, his opinion changed. Rather than passing the torch to media or special interest groups, our governments could seek to bring us together and have those conversations, using whatever technology — it is expensive to fly everyone out, but it certainly does not cost a whole lot in terms of energy or money to link us on the Internet — to link our classrooms and to link us together to have a conversation that raises us up to intelligence levels that we as Canadians have rather than responding to emotion and rhetoric that seems to be flying around right now. If we want to get those pipelines, we need to educate and talk about that as a country.
Senator Mitchell: One of the themes that has struck me is how you move from a preconceived position you had and what you have learned. I expect that each of you has had some of that experience. Would you like to jump in and tell me, Ms. Baker? Did you have an experience like that where you came in with ideas that have changed dramatically?
Ms. Baker: Yes and no. In Alberta, we discuss our energy frequently through school. Our coal and oil energy is not the greenest. We will eventually need to do something about it, but we have never really discussed what to do about it. We knew about alternative energy sources, and we knew about renewable energy, but in Edmonton and surrounding areas, we do not have a whole lot of resources that are entirely renewable, with the exception of wind. However, we found that wind energy has its flaws, too. Just like solar energy, it is not the most efficient; we do not get the most energy out of it that we would need. Even though, at one point in time, a lot of Edmonton's energy was run off hydroelectricity, it is not as efficient anymore.
Senator Mitchell: It is a question of relative efficiencies and cost. That is a key element of this whole debate, so thank you.
Mr. Eardley, what was your experience in this process? I am asking because we started in our study with the idea that we need to have a discussion, to use your word, where people who have different understanding, no understanding at all, or varying degrees of understanding get to have a stake and influence in these decisions.
How do you bring people together, get above the yelling at each other — yes, no, yes, no? Your experience is a model of that, in a way. In fact, with the use of that technology in a concerted fashion, we could broaden beyond classroom situations to representative groups and virtual focus groups across the country.
Mr. Eardley: I came to this project with a view similar to Mr. Praill's. I always had an interest in the environment. I was pretty much "Stop the soil sands right away. We need to fix the environment over everything else.'' However, over the course of the project, I definitely learned very quickly that doing that would be very bad for the economy. It just could not happen. I understand more the importance that some of these sources have for our economy, and how we should work towards cleaning them, as well as looking at other sources.
Senator Mitchell: I think your argument, which is implicit in what you are saying, is not to completely do away with traditional energy, such as conventional oil and gas and the oil sands, but rather to find a way to broaden to other alternative energy sources while doing traditional energy better. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Eardley: Eventually it is possible those sources will not be needed anymore, so maybe we will just stop using them if we develop technologies that will allow that. For now, they are so important; they are the best things we have — not for the environment — but for use. We should work on making them friendlier for the environment, and also look at other sources that are renewable and more sustainable.
Mr. Praill: When it comes to our energy model, we need to take a look at the model of innovation in the majority of Asian countries where they often take tools we invented and reverse-engineer them to make them better. The fund in Alberta for R & D focuses more on the cleaning up of the traditional energy sources than it does on the development of newer sustainable energy sources. When we are creating this strategy, we need to focus per province or territory on what would help them the most. In provinces like Alberta, it will not be the creation of a new energy form right away. It will be the cleaning-up of the oil sands.
Senator Mitchell: I am inspired by this, and I would like to ask more questions. Several of you mentioned — and I think Ms. Baker went most directly at it — the question of tax. That is a difficult word, politically. You are not the first person to have said that we need to price carbon, and even many industries say it should be taxed.
In your discussion across the country, did you get into the idea of how to sell that, in a political environment where tax is kind of like the plague?
Ms. Baker: I think the idea of GST might have come from bouncing ideas off each other. People do not like the idea of being taxed for so many things.
If we were to put it all under one tax, such as increase the GST by 1 per cent, yes, they would be upset with the extra 1 per cent, but it would be a little easier to get used to than it would to have two taxes. It seems like less if it is all under one. That is kind of how that came around.
The Chair: Senator Lang is from the Yukon. They do not have any taxes in the Yukon.
Senator Lang: Everyone has taxes, and obviously there is a difference of opinion in the political divide in respect to whether you have more taxes or fewer taxes or the taxes stay the same. It is very easy to stand in your place if you are not the one who has to vote for more taxes and talk about someone else voting to bring in taxes.
I would ask this question: You have obviously done some studying. You know that a barrel of oil is approximately $100 a barrel. Even at the deepest depth of the last recession, which was not that long ago, and your parents and you experienced it, I think the lowest was maybe $80 a barrel, which is very expensive. Normally, when you have a recession, it might go down to $30 a barrel. In your deliberations going to recommend a tax, did you consider the marketplace? With the high cost of energy, those that are consuming it and those that are actually exploring for it are being forced, because of economics, to find other ways of producing that energy in a more energy-efficient way and in a more environmentally acceptable way than we have in the past. That is because of market forces as opposed to saying that government should come in and administer a tax and decide who the winners are and who the losers are. Did you consider that at all?
Ms. Baker: You are asking if the market has been the force behind it?
Senator Lang: You recommended that we consider a greenhouse gas tax or carbon tax or cap and trade, whatever method of taxation, but taxation is the bottom line. Energy costs are becoming higher and higher because of the costs associated with it. There are market forces at play that are requiring those that are developing it to find more efficient, not less efficient, ways of producing it. We as consumers are being forced to consider our bill every month and say, "Should I re-insulate my house?'' Did you consider that as opposed to bringing a tax in, which, as I said earlier, says that you will pick losers and winners, because that is what governments do. Yes or no?
Mr. Dueck: Is it okay if I jump in?
The Chair: We were going to name you Minister of Energy, but we decided to make you Minister of Trade. I think Mr. Praill will be the senator guy. It is between Mr. Eardley and Ms. Baker for Minister of Energy.
Mr. Dueck: I agree with the fact that market values and the cost of products will affect the cost of energy, which in turn would affect how a consumer would approach purchasing energy and making their choices. However, when we were talking about it with the integration of a more progressive tax rate on energy sources, that increases the cost of energy even when we are no longer in a recession or depression. When we are prospering as a country, maybe we are not focusing as much as we should on sustainable forms of energy, because if we have a lot of money in the bank, and this is not necessarily for every consumer, we are not looking into what is the most socially responsible choice. We are looking into what is the easiest choice.
One thing I think does change when we go into a time of less money in Canada is that the market is determined. A corporation will distribute to a consumer and will market their product effectively, so if the consumer is looking for a cheaper, more socially responsible form of energy, that is what the consumer will get. Through the integration of different taxes and playing on integrating a tax as we are coming out of an economic downturn, we can look into maintaining that cycle that naturally occurs within the flow of the economy where, as there are less funds, people move away from the less sustainable forms of energy and keep that going even as we are prospering as a nation.
Senator Lang: Let us get down to brass tacks here. You drive a car, right?
Mr. Dueck: I do not, but yeah.
Senator Lang: You will. I drive a car. Back where I come from in the Yukon, we are paying, if I am not mistaken, about $1.30 or $1.34, depending on the day, for a litre of gas.
The Chair: That is regular as opposed to premium.
Senator Lang: That is regular, and it is sometimes higher. What you are saying to us, then, is that those who are driving will pay more from the point of view of when they go and fill up for gas. You will take from three cents a litre to eight cents, depending how do you it and whether you do it as a carbon tax. It always comes back around to the consumer pays. That is what are you advocating?
Mr. Dueck: We are not advocating in the sense that we would want to target specific regions of the country. With provincial taxation, I know from Alberta we do not have PST, but that is determined under the jurisdiction of the province. I do not think that is the perfect solution, but it is a starting point. If people collaborate together, that is something we can take and make into a more effective system. We can prosper from then on. I am not saying that we have the correct answer for your question and your concerns, but I am saying we have an idea that we put forward that needs to be worked on. We need to have this conversation with the people of Canada, talking about what we want and how we want to achieve these goals.
Mr. Praill: To add on to that, when I was talking earlier, I mentioned the facilitation of the federation as the role of the federal government. When we were talking about that, one of the roles we created was that the federal government would be responsible for the creation of a Canadian energy strategy, a national policy, such as a standard carbon tax, but it also provided solutions that catered individually to each province's or territory's needs. It would be the federal government's responsibility to make sure that the standard carbon tax does not directly misrepresent any province or territory or become too harsh for one province compared to another.
Senator Lang: I think it is important for the listeners especially to realize what the oil sands contribute to Canada. I listened to you earlier, Mr. Praill, with respect to your view of Canada and how it changed. The reality of it is that over the next 25 years, there will be $184 billion of tax, one way or the other, accruing from the oil sands for Canada. There will be something like in the same neighbourhood of $180 billion that will go to Alberta, with the tax structure the way it is. There is tax being paid and tax being distributed across the country to pay for things such as medicare and other aspects when it comes to transfers of payments and things of that nature. We have to realize that if we are to keep our standard of living, we have to keep an industry that can continue to function, continue to make a profit and, at the same time, pay taxes to the general revenue of, in this case, Alberta, and in some cases British Columbia and the other provinces where it is produced, and also to the federal government and our federation. We cannot lose sight of that. We have to be careful when we start talking about administering more taxes, because when you administer more taxes, it costs more. It costs more to produce and it costs more for the consumer. At the end of the day, you have less to spend on other things as well. That is the flag I would put up with respect to that particular area that you are looking at.
The Chair: Senator Mitchell wanted to intervene on this point.
Senator Mitchell: We have three people on the list.
The Chair: I will tell you what I was going to suggest. I would like to wrap this up in about 15 or 20 minutes. At this stage of the game, I understand that you folks have some prepared questions that you would like to address to those senators still present, including Senator Massicotte, who is a deep fount of wisdom, and Senator Brown who is from Alberta and obviously quite smart.
We have had, from the Twitter, a couple of questions, which I would like to read out and then we can all maybe address them. They are addressed to the senators, and they come from at @keegansorge, and they are the following. I thought of you in this, Senator Massicotte. "What is your opinion on Canada's current environmental/economic situation?'' That is the question. The second one is, "What would be Canada's best option for alternative forms of energy?''
Again, perhaps Senator Brown or Senator Sibbeston will comment because they are addressed to us. Then I believe you have questions for us.
Senator Mitchell, I think we would use the last 15 or 20 minutes dealing with these and other tweets that might come in.
Senator Mitchell: That is great.
The Chair: Would you like to start, Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: I would like them to respond, because we have this debate frequently among ourselves but they have fresh ideas.
The Chair: My only point was that the question I just read out was addressed to the senators. Maybe you can start by giving your view. The second one, on what would be Canada's best option for alternate forms of energy, can be addressed quickly based on our research. On the first one, you could be Minister Flaherty or Minister Mulcair.
Senator Massicotte: Would you repeat the first question?
The Chair: Yes. "What is your opinion on Canada's current environmental/economic situation?''
Senator Massicotte: I will answer the question by raising the actual question I would have addressed to you. The debate is very interesting because it is similar to the debate the House of Commons has constantly since there are contrary self-interests in trying to reach a medium solution. The difficulty I would have with your solution is the same difficulty I have with the current government program, whether a Conservative or Liberal program. I am quite concerned, from the advice we are getting, that the current projection on our efforts as a world body, as a Canadian body, is that we will definitely not achieve the 2 degrees Celsius which we said would be acceptable. The advice we are getting from the International Energy Agency is that based on our current projection we will be at 3.5 to maybe 5 degrees Celsius, which will eliminate approximately 6 per cent of the species on the earth. The expert advice we are getting is sorry guys, you will probably never achieve 2 degrees Celsius because we are just too late.
Therefore, what I see coming from you is that you do not want a carbon tax and there is a lot of stuff you do not want because you say no tax but a lot of government subsidies. Sorry, but you have to increase taxes somewhere because the government is not a black hole but all taxpayers together. I would say that I do not like more taxation and I do not like subsidies, but I am very concerned that what the world will leave behind for your generation and my grandchildren will cost us a lot more than the opportunity costs we are talking about. I would personally bite the bullet and I would actually accept a carbon tax or something that gets us there. I do not like taxation, I do not want to pay more, but the consequences are very severe, and I think we are sleepwalking towards a disaster if we do not change our attitude on real laws on consumption of energy.
The Chair: That is on the state of the environment, but what about the economy?
Senator Massicotte: That will affect the economy.
The Chair: Are there any comments?
Mr. Godwaldt: In terms of our perspective on the tax, did you feel the students came out against the tax or that they came out for the tax?
Mr. Dueck: I felt in general the main consensus was an understanding that your point was jurisdictionally it will not initially be the same economic impact on every Canadian. It is a price I and a lot of the Canadian youth we talked to think is worth it for us to pay in order to sustain the security of our future. One of the best investments we can make, if we are going to spend money somewhere, should not only be on the youth of Canada but on future generations of Canadians. Failing to leave behind a world for us to live in would not give us options to prosper and succeed.
Senator Massicotte: I will make an observation on your survey. Only 7 per cent of your group supported cap and trade. Only 11.6 per cent supported a carbon tax. Only 16 per cent approved a rapid shift to the goal to use 100 per cent sustainable energy, and only 11.6 was in favour of using carbon taxation to fund research.
You have responded as we all do. No one wants to pay more, but did you actually consider the consequences? We all would love not to pay more, but the advice we are getting is that disaster looms.
Mr. Dueck: In the way we had our survey set up, which I do not know if we clarified at the beginning, students across Canada were allowed to pick their four most important options that we would bring to the Senate's attention. It was not yes or no, or I agree or do not agree. It was what are the four most important options to meet. Looking at that 7 per cent, it means 7 per cent of Canadian youth think this is one of the four most important topics out of all the topics in the broad range of environmental sustainability.
Senator Massicotte: Is that on the list you have here?
Mr. Dueck: That is on the list we have. They could choose four from all the options that are presented.
The other thing is with tax and incentives. The reason a lot of students, me included, did not vote for just a carbon tax is that carbon is not the only emission into the atmosphere. We wanted to create a toxic gas tax that is located on the policy initiative page. That is including CO2, nitrous oxide and sodium oxide, et cetera. It is not only a carbon tax. You could call it a general pollution tax.
Senator Mitchell: I believe 58 per cent voted for that.
Mr. Dueck: Yes, 58 per cent, and that means as well that 58 per cent of Canadian youth think that is one of the four most important policy incentives that need to be addressed when we presented to the Senate.
Senator Massicotte: As I read that, only 37 per cent agree with educating the consumer better and only 25 per cent agree with increased funding for research, more efficient use. You are saying that does not necessarily represent the voting. In the way you did your voting, this percentile may not be accurate. Were these the 10 choices the students were to vote on?
Mr. Dueck: For the first one we had the future of sustainable energy in Canada and we wanted to talk about the vision statements. Those were the four main topics presented to you today and those were hands down the highest ones. That was the first option in our survey when we presented it to them. This was done digitally so we could not explain it word for word. They had to read the instructions. Those are the four most important things, and then we justified them with the significantly highest policy incentives that would apply to those initiatives. These are the changes we want to make, and then these were the recommendations on how to make those changes.
Mr. Godwaldt: When we set this document up we could have done a better job making that clear. They only had four things to choose from, as opposed to meaning that 90 per cent of them chose not that.
Senator Massicotte: You have responded very much like the Canadian population. You only have 58 per cent in favour of a tax, in spite of the fact that you are probably more sensitive to the environment than are older adults. That is probably because you are not faced with the same economic choices. You can talk about it theoretically. In a sense, it is disappointing how little support you have to address the actions. It is only 58 per cent, but that is real life. You do very much portray what is happening in Canada. Therefore you can you understand how our governments, no matter which government, have difficulty in coming to these decisions because they know they will not get broad-based support. They probably know very well what is the right decision for the sake of the next 20 or 30 years, but they do like to stay in power. It is a different quandary for any government to make these decisions. It is very representative of the debate our society is going through.
Senator Lang: On my side I am not disappointed at all from the point of view of the response in respect to the question of taxation. I do not think that is necessarily the answer to all our problems. If you are going to tax someone thinking that will solve your problem, you had better think again.
I was curious, in looking at the questions that were asked, whether or not you raised the question of the regulatory systems we have across the country and the complications that it brings because of the fact the way they are set up and the way they do business or have been doing business over the past 10 years. They have been very slow, very expensive. In fact, now we are getting more into regulatory processes where it is not a question of what the environmental risks are to a certain project, but now you are arguing whether the project should go ahead before you know the risks. It is a yes or a no situation. The process was set up to listen to both sides of the issue from the environmental and the economic sides, and then to have recommendations and deal with them when the process comes to a conclusion.
That was not part of the discussion at any time in respect to energy, the sustainability of energy and the ability to promote development in the country. That was not an issue that was raised; is that correct?
Mr. Godwaldt: Jurisdiction was brought up in terms of who is in charge of what, but you bring up a good point in that this is not a discussion that can take place over a month culminating in one conference. This needs to be an ongoing discussion so that we can continue to hear dissenting voices. I would welcome having you come and speak to our youth. The centre facilitates the largest network of schools in the country that is looking for these real-time engagement opportunities. I extend that invitation to all senators.
Our interest in today was due to knowing that their voices would be heard. Whether it is via video conferencing from the Senate chamber or via a computer, the kids really want to hear from you and they want you to hear from them. The youth created this from the ground up. They identified the key questions and know that some things will obviously be overlooked, but being able to continue this conversation with any senator would be an amazing opportunity. We can do this with the technology we have. Be aware that the kids are ecstatic that you are willing to listen to them and that they can have that conversation and pursue the things that we did not talk about.
Senator Mitchell: I attended at Colonel By Secondary School and did a seminar on sustainability and Aboriginals, which Senator Sibbeston should be doing as well. On-screen participants included Alaska, other states and a couple of provinces. They even connect with foreign countries there.
In addition to that, which was very interesting, the seminar was being moderated by two Aboriginal students in my old high school, Queen Elizabeth in Edmonton.
They are looking for people to do these seminars. It would be great, Senator Lang, if you could do one. You can do it from anywhere, even from the Yukon. We should offer to do that and further this discussion.
Senator Massicotte: I move that Senator Lang does that.
The Chair: I rule the motion out of order.
Senator Mitchell: I wanted to acknowledge the presence of a teacher from Edson, Corey Reynolds, who has been working with these students and Mr. Godwaldt.
Senator Brown: I want to compliment you young people for the work you have done. I would recommend, however, that in the future you look at the resources and the research that is going into this.
I received a sheet of paper five minutes after I sat down with you. It comes from Washington, D.C., and says that the oceans began warming 135 years ago, not 20 years ago, and that they have increased in temperature 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit or 0.33 degrees centigrade, and that is at a depth of 2,300 feet or 700 metres. We are all working with a sea change in what we thought the research was going to show.
I learned three days ago that 10 places in the world accomplished fusion energy for a brief period. The only problem they have so far is that the process uses more energy that the experiments are producing. They have to find out how to make it produce unlimited amounts of energy.
Thanks for coming and thank you for all the information you provided.
Mr. Dueck: Senator Brown, I appreciate this amazing opportunity to be here. When we were preparing our presentation we did not focus less on research. We wanted to research as much as possible with the resources available to us to show that we cared about the issue. However, our understanding is that this committee has been sitting for almost three years and has heard from international environmentalists and our country's top PhDs in environmental science. We felt it would be wrong for us to lecture on the knowledge aspect and rather chose to bring you the different perspective of the youth of Canada.
I was not aware of the document that you presented. It never came up in our research. It is something that needs to be addressed when we have the information.
I just wanted to clarify that our objective today was to offer a new opinion to the Senate.
Senator Brown: Again, I compliment you for your work. As I said, there is a sea change going on in terms of the research. They are learning more and more, and you will find that more and more scientists will tell you things different things from what you have heard to date.
Mr. Dueck: Thank you. After your three years of research on this project, in your opinion is it a good option for Canada to expand our pipelines across the country to both the Atlantic and the Pacific?
The Chair: I do not want to speak for colleagues, but I would say that it is a darned good idea. I believe that it is essential, if we are to have a proper national strategy and have energy security for Canada in the future, to protect the East as well as the West in terms of crude oil.
Why do we not go around the table and give our views.
Senator Lang: Obviously it is an ongoing political debate in the country. There are pipelines going from Alberta down through the United States. There are pipelines all over the world, including in Russia and Europe. Much of the political spin on the danger of pipelines is questionable. I come from the Yukon, which is adjacent to Alaska. There has been an oil pipeline there for about 40 years and it has operated in a manner that has been acceptable to the general public.
We will have to see what the environmental risks are, which I do not think are insurmountable. Yes, I think there should be pipelines. If we are going to diversify our economy and take advantage of our resources, sell them on the open market and get full price for them as opposed to what we are doing right now, we need to go with pipelines. It will make us a stronger country and enable us to meet our social obligations.
Senator Massicotte: I believe that we definitely need a pipeline to the West Coast. We need to diversify our customer base. That is a very strong yes.
TransCanada to the east is not economically justifiable today. One can make the argument that for security of supply our existing sources are not reliable. In that case, you can be persuaded to subsidize the pipeline across Eastern Canada, but today I would say that it is not economically feasible.
Senator Lang: I agree with Senator Massicotte that it must be economically feasible.
Senator Brown: There is a major difference between a pipeline from Alberta to the East Coast and one to the United States. It is over 3,000 miles to go to the East Coast and it is 2,200 miles from Alberta to the Gulf Coast where the refineries are. Keystone and the new refineries that will have to be built are expected to produce $1.7 trillion of wealth over 20 years and in the order of 100,000 jobs. It is a big deal.
It does not help the United States, and right now the United States needs a lot of help economically with both jobs and money.
Senator Sibbeston: It occurred to me that if it was economically feasible or practical, do you not think it would have been done already in terms of the pipeline to Eastern Canada?
The other factor is we have no choice but to seek markets in other parts of the world. When I see the publicity and the negative resistance to the pipeline to the West Coast, I wonder how our country will ever achieve that. There is so much resistance, particularly by Aboriginal people along the route and on the coast. Will Canada just bulldoze the thing despite all the opposition there is in B.C.? You have these kinds of problems as a country that we have to face; you kind of bulldoze despite what the Aboriginal people say in western B.C. If you look at the news, they seem to be so opposed to it, so how is a country ever going to convince them of the merits? Obviously, they are concerned about the spills and so forth that occur.
It is these sorts of things that I think we face as a country. It is not just an academic exercise at all; it is the reality of life in different parts of our country that we have to face.
The Chair: We are counting on you to make that happen.
Senator Mitchell: A theme of the debate or one of the lines is clear, with Senator Lang on one of the furthest — I do not want to say extreme — saying the market, the market, the market.
I believe in markets. I worked in business, but to exaggerate for emphasis, would the market have won the Second World War? Did we need to win the Second World War? Yes. Would the markets have won it? No. We had to work together, coordinate, invest, create policy, and figure out how to win the war.
I am with Senator Massicotte. I am deeply concerned about climate change and I think the economics of not doing something about it are infinitely worse, absolutely infinitely worse, than the economics of doing something about climate change.
Winning the Second World War did not wreck our economies. It created Western industrialized economies that have been the strongest, the best, and that have created the best standard of living in the history in the world. Winning the war on climate change will not wreck our economy. What we need to understand — and you get it — is that we cannot just do away with the oil sands or traditional forms of energy. It will not happen. We have to find out how to do them better, and we can. We have to find out how to do other things better as well, but I think the stakes are extremely high and the urgency is high, and we cannot say let the markets do it.
To be more specific, the markets will drive it a lot; that is why pricing can be helpful. To be more specific about the pipeline east, it is a question of what, as a society, we put on the question of energy security. We are saying to the U.S., "You should buy our oil because you need energy security,'' but the Maritimes are buying the same oil as the U.S., so it is an issue of how much will be put into it.
Senator Massicotte: Are you recommending another world war as a solution?
The Chair: The chair will call order to this. We had the first question from our panel of young Canadians and they heard our diverse answers to question A. Now there are three more questions. We have gone beyond the time I had set, but I would like to have the three questions and you can have three more answers.
What is the next question?
Ms. Baker: After having experts present to you, did you have a sudden realization or a change in thought or opinion like Mr. Praill did when he was thinking that we should have a quick shift at first, but then after researching said no, a slow shift would be a lot more feasible and appropriate? Perhaps it was not specifically that change in thought, but something that was shared with you that kind of altered your thinking?
The Chair: Let me try and we will go around the table.
Senator Massicotte: Could we get all three questions and we can get a quick comment and save a lot of time?
Mr. Eardley: I was going to ask about what I talked about in my presentation. Does Canada have any ambition to come out as leader in environmental stuff? If so, what plan do they have now if any? What are they thinking about that at the moment?
The Chair: The third question?
Mr. Eardley: He is not here.
The Chair: We will start with that. What we learned quickly when we initiated this study — the idea was to get the literacy and get people talking energy — was the realization of what a wonderfully blessed country we are on the one hand, and how diverse it is. What is good in northern British Columbia is not necessarily the same thing in Alberta or Saskatchewan.
We eventually found that the economy, energy and the environment are inextricably tied together. If you go with one thing say on the environment, what effect will that have on the economy and so on. That led to more of a gradual report or action over time. You cannot just shut all the coal-fired plants in Alberta or the nuclear plants in Ontario down tomorrow or you have chaos.
We have good things in place, they just need to be moderately and gradually phased out where it makes sense to, as they are doing in Ontario phasing out coal-fired plants and having transitional fuel of natural gas for example. Some of you referred to that. That was the situation on that.
In terms of Mr. Eardley's question, my comment would be that governments change. Governments have their policies. The present government believes it has a very focused policy on the environment. Not everyone agrees with that, but they do have it. They talk about it. You referred to Minister Kent, and you have met with him, I think.
The government is dealing with the major partners here in North America. To wit yesterday, the three amigos — the Mexican leader, the American, and Canadian — all met. They issued a communiqué and half was on energy and the environment. We are tied in with them. Clearly, the trend is to have a cleaner and greener and more sustainable and efficient way forward, both in environment and energy and taking the account of the economy.
Senator Lang: I will make a couple of points in respect to your first question about a change of thought.
I think what you and your colleagues have brought forward here is not unlike what we heard across the country. It is interesting when you get the diverse representation that you have here and exchange views and find out how what is happening in one part of the country affects another part of the country.
The one aspect I have learned over the course of time I have been on this committee is diversification across the country, and that we are truly fortunate to be Canadians. When I speak some at events I bring this forward and describe it in this manner: If you have been born a Canadian, you have won the lottery. We should always remember that. We are extremely fortunately.
We talk about the environment in Canada here and naval gaze a lot, but we should view it from the point of view that the glass is half full, not half empty.
When we look at our greenhouse gas emissions, I believe the figure is 500,000 metric tonnes a year versus a country like China that does almost 9 million.
We are in an area where we do have problems related to greenhouse gas emissions, and it is an area of concern. It is a question of how we approach those concerns and how we can diminish our responsibilities when it comes to those emissions and the planet we live on.
I think we can do that, but we have to work towards that. From the point of view of where we are as a country and for young people, you should look at your country and say how fortunate we are. Yes, we can make it better, but we have gone a long way in the past number of years to get to where we are.
Senator Massicotte: I agree completely with Senator Lang and our chair as to how lucky we are to be in Canada, and we are well positioned compared to the rest of the world.
However, I will reiterate my earlier comment. What I learned was a shock: A great preponderance of world experts are saying there is a warming up of the climate change and, given the amount of infrastructure already in place that cannot be changed, we are heading to a significant warming up of our climate, far beyond two degrees Celsius. The consequences to species — and the economy — will be serious.
I say that even if we move quickly as a government, as a world, it will still be a slow shift. You will not destroy all the existing buildings and all the inefficiencies. It will be a slow shift.
As a leading country, we basically "punch above our weight'' in the world sense. We should be doing more to ensure we get there faster, and we need to be aggressive in addressing climate change.
I have to say that the sense of discouragement I have is that the world is the same. They are not headed there quickly. We can criticize governments for doing so, but it is because the electorate is not going there. Look at the polls: 85 per cent of Canadians say they want a strong emphasis on the environment. When you are charging $300 a year, it goes down to 15 per cent.
It is all very nice to say "I want this and that,'' but people from an average sense are not prepared to make the sacrifice to get there. Governments represent the electorate, but the electorate has to smarten up and make the sacrifices to get there because we will all suffer in 20 or 30 years, and big time.
Senator Brown: Actually, you can get a whole new set of research from Senator Mitchell. All you have to do is go on his line and ask for copies of the research people, starting with Dr. Happs. It is a 22-page thing.
Senator Sibbeston: I do not have much to contribute to what has been said.
I come from the Northwest Territories where we see the signs of climate change. People do not like the erratic weather change, but we do not mind the milder weather. For the last three days I have been in Yellowknife it has been zero, which is a bit unusual.
We are noticing that the effects in the North are more severe than in the South. We know it is coming about. I think the North in the next 30 or 40 years will change dramatically because of there being less ice up in the Arctic. Transport will be possible. That part of the North will be more open to development.
With less cold, I do not know whether there will ever be immigration or a movement of people into the Arctic. There is no soil like Alberta and Saskatchewan such that people can become farmers. It is pretty well sandy and rocky, with muskeg. It is not an area where there will be mass migration. In many ways people up in the North like that, because they do not want too many people up there.
Senator Mitchell: The most startling revelation for me was the realization that dealing with climate change will not hurt the economy. It is not an economic burden but an opportunity, and it will stimulate the economy. I think we will find that we will fix it faster with less dislocation, upset and change than we imagine. That is my answer to the first question.
The second answer is that we are not providing enough leadership internationally, and I think the potential exists there. We are a remarkably fortunate country, I agree. It is a gift from God — like winning the lottery — to live here, and we have a responsibility to the rest of the world in many ways to provide that leadership. I think we can do better.
The Chair: Mr. Praill, you were out of the room. We went around the room. Three questions were articulated. We have five minutes left and I would like you to give us your question.
Mr. Praill: After three years of research on sustainable energy, have you come to a conclusion that it is better that we incorporate some sort of national energy strategy or should it be more on a provincial level? Which government should be taking the point on this?
The Chair: That is the fundamental and relevant question, one we will be addressing in our report.
Clearly, there is a role for all levels of government; however, in Canada, the basic jurisdiction rests with the provinces. The provinces have recently and happily, in my opinion — and I think my colleagues share this — come to the realization that it is necessary for them to start having a dialogue, and to start collaborating and working together to develop a cohesive framework for a national energy policy that will bring prosperity to all the regions in the country.
They have embarked on this more or less on the condition that the feds stay out of it. The federal government will be consulted when it is consulted and then it can have its input. That is fine with the federal government. It also has certain areas of jurisdiction, particularly in the North, where the federal government has a role to play through the work that is done in Environment Canada, in Natural Resources Canada, and in Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which is a major one. There are also, as you are aware, the National Energy Board and the various federal initiatives in the energy game.
That is what we have discovered. Whether Ms. Redford is successful in the election, she has been very clearly and consistently outspoken since the day she became leader, and it has had an influence with Ontario and Quebec. I am not sure about the other provinces, but my information is that they are all rallying to a collaborative approach amongst themselves, which is perfect in Ottawa. Ottawa should keep out of it. Ottawa was the big bad wolf in the NEP. Ottawa has enough problems on its plate, and the present government believes in less involvement rather than more in terms of government, generally.
Those would be my comments.
Senator Massicotte: I agree with the chair's answer completely.
The Chair: He is a fine Canadian.
Senator Mitchell: The main thing for me is collaboration and cooperation. I am from Alberta. Federal leadership can cause certain problems.
There is an area where federal leadership is essential and that is when we speak to the rest of the world. The world does not think that Alberta speaks for Canada. I am from Alberta and I love it and God bless Alison Redford — she has done quite a bit of that. However, the world does not see that. Canada has to take a role in our brand and credibility on these issues.
I want to say that this has been a remarkable experience on many levels for me and I speak for all my colleagues, also, and for people who have been watching it. The four of you are immensely impressive, and the leadership you have had from people like Mr. Godwaldt and Mr. Reynolds is clearly evident in the work you have done. You have brought a sense of the power of modern technology, the contribution it makes to a democratic process and democratic possibilities.
However, you have also brought to us a tremendous passion and energy for the future from a generation that clearly is ready to take this kind of responsibility. Clearly, we need you to do it.
Thank you very much. I am impressed.
The Chair: I would like to simply add a final word. Mr. Godwaldt and all of you, thank you for getting involved when you did when the idea came up and seeing it to a conclusion here this evening. There will be ramifications far beyond what has played out this evening, if I understand the role of your organization.
We are here trying to make a little bit of a difference. Our report is very much on our agenda, it is in our focus, it is a huge bite after so much study for such a long time and trying to come up with something that will actually make a difference and be user-friendly. There are so many big reports around that sit on shelves in universities and do not get read, so we are trying to come up with something that will be practical.
We urge you to spread the gospel. You can see we really are warm bodies that care and are focused on the subject matter. We want to carry on talking energy with Canadians. Keep in touch with us, if you will, both electronically through social media and otherwise. We are always interested in hearing your point of view.
[Translation]
For those from "la belle province'' of Quebec, as I am, we very much appreciate the work that you have done, not only for your schools first and foremost, but also as young Canadians with a deep interest in the topic that is so important for both the present and the future of all Canadians.
[English]
On that note, thank you all. I declare the meeting terminated.
(The committee adjourned.)