44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 6, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague's last intervention was very interesting. It was about production and delays involving electric vehicles.
The Bloc Québécois keeps proposing a gradual energy transition, which would mean taking the money that is being invested in Albertan oil and investing it in the development of clean energy instead.
I will ask my colleague a question, since he seems to be on the same side as me on the issue of encouraging the purchase and production of electric vehicles.
Would he agree with the Bloc Québécois's suggestion to stop funding the most polluting energy sources and using that money for investments in clean energy so that Alberta can continue to be a leader?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak to this bill, but I also do so with great humility.
The principle of Bill C-235 was interesting in the sense that the Government of Canada can act specifically in a regional development fund and that there can be a contribution from regions and territories that take matters into their own hands and provide some sort of support for innovation in their jurisdiction. The principle seemed very appealing to me.
Then again, in committee, we felt that, despite the good will of the sponsor, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, whom I salute, the bill also had a political aim. To me, that is an irritant.
The Bloc Québécois is as much in favour of the principle of the bill as it was when we voted on it at second reading. However, I am now saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-235. This is the position I defended in committee.
Of course, we are in dire need of a plan to accelerate the greening of the Prairie economy, which is currently trapped in the 20th century because it relies far too much on fossil fuels.
As members will recall, the member for Winnipeg South Centre was the minister of natural resources from 2015 to 2018. He knows that this is going to be a huge project and that it will take a monumental effort to muster the necessary resources. In fact, it might have been interesting to see such a bill put forward back then.
We know that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term and that the prairie provinces will suffer a decline unless they diversify their economy and start going digital. They will have to start soon, but doing it quickly may be just as painful.
The Bloc Québécois agreed with the principle of Bill C‑235, but, as I mentioned, during our study, which included five meetings, 17 witnesses and five briefs, several shortcomings were revealed. The transition to a green economy that Bill C‑235 talks about is essentially a shift to nuclear. Many people saw it as an opportunity to push small modular plants, which would provide the energy required to extract more oil. That shocked me.
In this context, I think that we cannot equate a transition to clean energy with a transition to nuclear energy. Let us not forget that there are still some serious safety issues involved in the management of nuclear waste.
We heard testimony from the governments of the three provinces covered by Bill C‑235, and they basically told us that they did not want it. For me, as a Bloc Québécois member representing the interests of Quebec, this was quite revealing. Perhaps that is what made me change my mind. Why should we impose a bill on other provinces that will dictate to them how they should develop their own land?
To me, the provinces are the real experts. If the federal government wants to contribute financially, great. However, the real question is, who will be in charge of coordination and whose development vision will prevail? In this context, the provinces have made it clear that it is not up to Ottawa to take the lead. They will not allow the federal government to take charge of regional economic development on their territory. They do not want the federal government to be responsible for coordinating the various stakeholders involved, particularly the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction, and the workers, who are also under provincial jurisdiction.
The Bloc Québécois does not feel directly involved because, obviously, we do not have any members from the Prairies. We are limited to Quebec. However, when a province asks that we respect its jurisdiction, we listen. We hope to get the same consideration in return when we ask others to respect the autonomy and jurisdiction of Quebec. It would be nice if the House applied this principle more often: If an issue concerns us, we are interested; if it does not, we can still take an interest in the principle and support it. That is what the Bloc Québécois has done. However, when we examine the bill in depth, we realize that it is flawed. Above all, we want to say that the federal government should refrain from interfering even if it would like to. That is the position that we in the Bloc Québécois will take.
The amendments that the committee adopted and that are in its report are essentially technical changes, such as specifying which department is responsible for what, or semantic changes, such as adding a green veneer to the wording. However, this does not fix the flaws in Bill C‑235, and many people expressed concerns about the bill being somewhat improvised.
With all due respect to the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who I think had a commendable motive in introducing the bill, there are significant challenges in the Prairies. As we know, one Albertan emits as much greenhouse gas as six Quebeckers, on average. A Saskatchewanian emits as much as seven Quebeckers. Transitioning to a green economy will really be a major challenge, but I do not think the answer lies in this bill. That speaks volumes about the magnitude of the challenges facing the provinces.
In regional economic development, there is a concept known as the “intrusive rentier syndrome”. It is what happens when a region has one large employer that pays high wages but is part of a declining industry. That is the challenge. Think of Trans Mountain, for example, which cost us $14 billion and counting, with all the repair costs and so on. I made a suggestion in committee: Is it not time to sell that pipeline and invest the money in the research ecosystem so that solutions can be found in universities for a truly green economic recovery?
There was a certain amount of backlash against the acquisition of the pipeline. People reacted to the idea that the government would own such a big pipeline. The government should not take such a risk with taxpayer money from Quebec and Canada. It would normally be up to the private sector. The greening of the economy requires concrete incentives. The federal government can collaborate on this, but should not be interfering in local co-operation as the bill stipulates. It is a step we are not ready to take.
Of course there were some interesting options: the transportation issue, job creation, job retraining, projects that create natural infrastructure and a clean environment. That is in there, but, as I said, so is nuclear power. That is something I found that to be an irritant. Nuclear power cannot be presented as an option just by naming it. I think there would be some background work to do. I am glad that we were able to hear from the witnesses who came to testify during our study of the bill. They told us that progress has been made, but it remains an extremely risky industry. I am not prepared to take that risk at this time, although it is believed to be a good thing. A lot of good things can be said until a disaster happens. To me, that is very concerning.
I would like to talk about the fiscal policy that encouraged development of the oil industry at the time. There were tax credits on oil exploration and site development, or investment and subsidies to clean up the pollution. It was a public takeover of some of the environmental liabilities. There are some reasons for what happened in the past, but at the same time, they can lead us to solutions now.
Again, we can make a real transition with a better sharing in terms of energy. We know that a hydrogen plant was recently established in Alberta. Some solutions are being put forward. However, I wonder if this hydrogen produced in Alberta will be truly green. It does not make sense to burn oil to produce hydrogen in order not to burn oil in our cars. The issue of economic development in the Prairies is not a simple one. I acknowledge it is a good idea to want to have a greener economy in the Prairies. We will always co-operate when such is the aim, but the Bloc Québécois will oppose Bill C‑235.
To conclude my remarks, I would like to say that the Liberal government has already made many commitments that it has not kept, and its credibility has been damaged. We know, however, that businesses and many citizens have gone to great lengths to make their contribution. The various Quebec governments have acted boldly on the environment for several decades. They have made courageous and ambitious decisions, and Quebec is therefore on the right path to a green economy. The committee study did not show that the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have followed comparable and compatible directions. In fact, they voted against the bill. Our hope is that grassroots initiatives in the provinces will be adequately supported for the good of our communities.
The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to supporting the fossil fuel industry and welcomes any measure aimed at redirecting the money towards businesses—
1608 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to express my support for Bill C-235. I had done that before at second reading.
It is a bill that essentially requires federal ministers to come together to consult with provinces and indigenous peoples on a path forward for the Prairies in order to green their economy. I think that is a laudable goal. In fact, it is a goal that Canada ought to have made more progress on by now. I do think we need to be acting with a sense of urgency.
While I would say there are many more things we need to do, I do not think it hurts at all to create a framework wherein some of the coordinating conversations have to happen between various levels of government, including indigenous governments. It is a step in the right direction.
If we are going to get serious about facing the urgency of the climate crisis, though, we are going to have to get beyond talking about how to have conversations and what conversations we ought to have, and get talking about the very real projects that we need to undertake. Often in Canada when we talk about energy projects, we are talking about particular oil and gas projects. Whether that is a new extractive oil sands development or whether it is the building of a pipeline, we are going to require public investment. In the same way, incidentally, that the oil and gas industry, particularly the oil sands in Alberta, required massive public investment in the 1970s and 1980s in order to make that industry what it is, we need a comparable level of public investment in renewable energy now to set us up to be energy leaders in the future energy economy that is coming, whether some of us would wish it were not.
That is why often New Democrats are quite upset to see massive public expenditures in the oil and gas sector. That is an established sector, one which has already benefited for decades from public investment of various kinds. The opportunity cost of spending public dollars now on the oil and gas sector is real, because it means that we are not setting ourselves up to continue to be major players in an energy sector that is transforming. We see international competitors already undertaking the work not just to reduce their own emissions and green their economy, but to become experts in the building and maintenance of that very technology that is going to be the future basis of the global energy economy.
Canadians should be at that table. Canadian workers should be developing that expertise. Canadian companies should be developing that expertise. We will not be developing that expertise if we do not see government investment that is directed toward the energy sector being directed to renewable energy as opposed to going back to the well, quite literally in this case, of the oil and gas sector.
We are going to continue to extract some amount of oil and gas well into the future, because it is not just used for cars and it is not just used for home heating. It is also used for plastics. It is an important manufacturing input. To that extent, we know that Canada has to ask itself the question as to what a sustainable level of extraction is. I believe there is an answer for that.
We could work backwards from Canada's emissions commitments under the Paris Agreement and other international agreements where Canada has committed to lower its emissions, and we could talk about what a sustainable oil and gas sector looks like. It does not look like approving every project that the industry itself says is a good idea. Unfortunately, that has been the model. It does not look like when private sector actors make a major investment, as they did in the TMX pipeline, the government running out to bail them out and say, “Oh, we are so sorry your project did not work out in Canada. That is all right. Canadian taxpayers will carry the load for you. There is no risk investing in Canada, because if you make a bad investment, we are here to bail you out.”
It is particularly frustrating, because when I talk about the role of a sustainable oil and gas sector in Canada, the focus really has to be not on just extracting more and more oil and gas, but on getting more and more value out of the oil and gas that we do extract. One of the ways to do that is to increase Canada's refining capacity. We have actually seen a significant diminishment of Canada's refining capacity. Often the argument is there is not the money to build a refinery, that it would cost tens of billions of dollars to build a refinery in Canada. That is what the government says in response to those of us who would like to see more emphasis on a value-added oil and gas sector.
However, what did the government do? It found what ended up being an over $20-billion investment overnight for the TMX pipeline.
I will not be told that money is not available. The problem is that it is not available within the context of a strategic future-looking framework. It is just available as a knee-jerk reaction to the oil and gas lobbyists when they come asking for money in Ottawa. That is not the way public dollars ought to be invested in the energy economy.
We saw it again in the last budget, where the Liberals announced billions of dollars in new subsidies for carbon capture and storage. The way the politics of that works is that the Liberals lay out tons of funds for the oil and gas sector, only to be told by the Conservatives that they are not doing enough and that they do not understand the oil and gas sector, so it is a pretty nice setup the oil and gas sector has here in Ottawa.
It has a subservient Liberal government and an official opposition that, no matter how much money the Liberals pump into the oil and gas sector, is going to say it is not doing enough and that it does not take oil and gas seriously. That works pretty nicely for the industry, but it does not work out well for Canadian workers who are interested in having their children and their grandchildren be able to get meaningful employment in the energy industry as that changes.
Often, the way the public debate crystallizes is around these individual projects, whether they are the northern gateway pipeline, the TMX pipeline or energy east, and that is because the industry itself already has access to vast amounts of capital, so those companies are able to make the initial investment to raise hopes and excitement about these kinds of projects. What we need is access to capital for renewable projects.
The Canada West Foundation is not know to be a typically NDP organization. I think that is fair to say. It has a great paper out on the potential for a western power grid, something I hope folks, under the consultation framework proposed in Bill C-235, would get serious in talking about. I also hope that those same governments that come to the table under the auspices of the framework required by this bill would also put up capital to move ahead on that. There are some interesting findings that could help lower energy costs and certainly help lower emissions, but what we need is capital behind these projects to show Canadians that these things are possible. We also need to talk about the benefits of these things, not only from an environmental point of view, but also from an economic point of view. I believe that is how the conversation around climate is actually going to change in Canada as we create excitement around real projects in the same way there is excitement around real pipeline projects.
I am a construction electrician. I understand that excitement. I know what it means to look to a big project as a source of work and income for one's family, and I know that is true for so many Canadians out there. Renewable energy can be that same exciting source of potential future employment to support families, but we are always talking about it in the abstract because we have not had people come together and mobilize the capital it would take and do the planning to show the path on individual projects.
I talked about one that I think makes a lot of sense for western Canada. There are other parts of the country I can look to, which of course I will not speak to because we are talking about western Canada in the context of the bill, but I think how we shift public opinion and build the trust that has to be built with workers to effect a proper energy transition is by talking about particular projects.
The bill would not do that, and I am disappointed that after seven years in government the Liberals have not acted with the appropriate sense of urgency. They have not built excitement around particular projects that could be meaningful sources of work for Canadian workers and help us build the competency within Canada for those kinds of projects.
That is competency that we can sell not only here in Canada, but also across the world in the way Manitoba Hydro once had a very successful division that was sought the world over to help build hydro projects across the world. That was until the Tories sold it off for pennies on the dollar. However, there are ways of developing that kind of expertise, and that has a real value for us, for Canada's reputation in the world and also for Canadian workers.
That is where I hope to see the direction of government policy go. I think this at least would create some tables for conversations to happen. We are going to have to do a lot more than that, though, if we want to meet the real climate challenge that Canada and the planet are facing.
1721 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
