44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, obviously, Conservatives support expanded development of offshore petroleum resources and the development of innovative, green and new technology development. Conservatives have, for years, highlighted concerns around permitting timelines and gatekeeping roadblocks of uncertain conditions.
Could the minister clarify how many of the details around the scope, mandate and requirements of the additional responsibilities of the new boards and regulators will be clarified before this bill passes the Senate? How much of that will be left to regulations such as what was done in Bill C-69, creating the disaster that Canada now finds itself in?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is actually a fair bit of detail in the bill. The hon. member will know the ways in which offshore accord acts work. They are actually jointly done and must be agreed upon.
There has to be mirror legislation introduced in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. The bulk of it will be laid out in the bill. There will obviously be some in the legislation but that will be, of course, something that must be agreed upon between the provincial governments and the federal government.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we know that the clean energy tax credits of the Biden administration have created an explosive growth in clean energy opportunities, $110 billion in new projects. On offshore wind, the vineyard project will create energy for 400,000 homes; off Rhode Island, 250,000 homes, so it is a huge opportunity.
At the same time, we see the Danielle Smith government shutting down and walking away on $33 billion in opportunities. Atlantic Canada has a huge opportunity here, but the urgency here is getting the tax credits moved from promises to reality so that we do not lose opportunities stateside like poor Alberta is doing from Danielle Smith's actions.
I would like to ask the minister this. When does he see the clean energy tax credits coming into force so that we can take full advantage and compete with the United States?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am in agreement with the member that we certainly want to advance the final definition of the investment tax credits so that there is certainty with respect to investment. Right now we are waiting to see what that will be.
I would also say that it is really important that we have a regulatory structure that companies can rely upon. That is exactly what this bill is intending to do, to put in place that regulatory structure in collaboration with Newfoundland and Labrador and with Nova Scotia.
With respect to the investment tax credits, we are working on that very actively. As members would know, the Department of Finance leads on that, but we are working to have that done expeditiously. We all recognize the need to have that in place.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 is welcome. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board have long had embedded within the legislation aspects of the Atlantic accord that make it a duty of these offshore boards to increase offshore petroleum production. I do not see those sections being removed. It is certainly welcome to see a focus that allows the offshore petroleum boards to actually promote and regulate offshore wind energy production, which is truly green.
Meanwhile, we still see subsidies pouring into fossil fuels. We still see that the government is intent on completing a pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, which we own, and it is a horror and a scandal to waste $31 billion on a project intended to produce more greenhouse gases out of the oil sands. We still are putting money into the proven failure of carbon capture and storage, which is yet another disguised subsidy to fossil fuels.
Would the government be open to amending Bill C-49 when it gets to committee to ensure that it takes away the embedded preference of petroleum over renewables?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the hon. member will appreciate, the role of the House and committees is to discuss and to look to find ways to improve upon bills. It would be irresponsible for any minister to say that he or she is not willing to engage a conversation about how bills can be improved. However, the focus of this bill is on enabling the offshore renewable sector, and that is something we are very intent on moving forward on as expeditiously as is possible.
I would correct a couple of the things that the hon. member said. A few months ago, the government brought forward a framework for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies. We are the first G7 country to do that. We are two years ahead of all the other countries with respect to their commitment. We have been very focused on that, as well as the international financing of fossil fuel projects.
With respect to the member's comments on carbon capture and sequestration, she is wrong. Many carbon capture and sequestration projects are in process of being developed or are already operating. It is a technology that is not that novel. It is scaling the technology and making it economic that is most important. I would suggest that perhaps she do a bit more homework on that.
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the minister endorse the idea of carbon capture and have that on the record.
I am wondering about liquefied natural gas. He did not mention it in his speech. Mr. Putin is largely funding his war on the back of selling natural gas in Europe. Canada is one of the largest producers of natural gas. Is his government now behind the idea of building liquefied natural gas terminals and supplying clean Canadian natural gas to the world?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
No, Madam Speaker, this bill is about enabling offshore wind. It has nothing to do with liquid natural gas, but there certainly are opportunities for liquid natural gas. LNG Canada phase one will be coming on stream in 2025 and the Woodfibre project probably not that long afterward. There are a number of other projects, including some that have been approved, like Cedar LNG.
However, for liquid natural gas to make sense in the context of moving forward, it has to be done in a manner that is consistent with Canada's climate obligations and it has to be in a situation where it actually displaces heavier fossil fuels that are used in other countries. We have been working with the sector on that and we will continue working within the sector, but it is simply not appropriate to ignore our climate obligations. Canada has to meet its own climate targets and therefore it has to be done with that frame.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is a historic day, the modernization of the Atlantic accords between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government, as we try to decarbonize our grids in the face of the increasing demand on electrification for home energy and transportation.
I wonder if the minister could comment briefly on the connection between the offshore accord modernization and the ability to decarbonize the Atlantic Canadian grid.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the member knows, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick still rely significantly on coal, and there is a need to move away from coal. The Government of Nova Scotia has its own requirement to be off coal by 2030. One of the ways in which we can enable that is through the development of more renewables, and offshore wind offers the opportunity for large scale renewables to feed the grid.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Lakeland, and Canadians everywhere, who want life to be more affordable, and also want energy and food security, which is the most important economic and geopolitical question facing the free world.
Unfortunately, Bill C-49 is another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.
Hopefully, this time the Liberals will actually listen to cautions and analysis during debate and committee consideration to prevent the rather ridiculous current spectacle they are now caught in, claiming to want to reduce permitting and regulatory timelines even though they have been in government for eight years, and are actually talking about the extra red tape, confusion and potentially endless timelines they themselves imposed through Bill C-69, which Conservatives and then municipalities, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents, and all provinces and territories did warn about at the time. As always, the Liberals figured they knew best, and they sure did create a heck of a broken mess.
Ostensibly, the bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to become the regulators and add offshore renewables to their mandates, while creating a regulatory regime for offshore, wind and other renewable energy projects that currently exist for offshore petroleum operations.
It is a reasonable and necessary initiative, and Conservatives are glad to see the inclusion of the provincial governments as required partners in final decisions on this joint jurisdiction. I might note that is a principle the Liberals often abandon when it comes to other provincial governments with which they disagree. However, it is both unfortunately and unsurprisingly clear that Bill C-49 would also subject offshore renewable energy to the same web of uncertain regulations, long and costly timelines and political decision-making that has driven hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector energy investment, hundreds of businesses and hundreds of thousands of energy jobs out of Canada and into other jurisdictions around the world.
Bill C-49 also includes provisions that could impose a full shutdown and ban on offshore oil and gas development at any time. That is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland's key industries, risks undermining the rights of indigenous communities and local communities to meaningful consultation, and ignores the work and aspirations of other locally impacted communities and residents.
The Liberals have already threatened offshore activity in Newfoundland and Labrador with a minister saying that the decision on Baie du Nord was the most difficult one they had ever made. Baie du Nord would have provided more than 13,000 jobs overall; $97.6 billion in national GDP; $82 billion in provincial GDP, more than 8,900 jobs, $11 billion in taxes and $12.8 billion in royalty revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador; $7.2 billion in GDP and more than 2,200 jobs for Ontario; $2.6 billion and more than 900 jobs for Quebec; $3.1 billion in GDP and almost 700 jobs for Albertan. Like the usual pattern under the government, the private sector proponent has put that project on hold for three years because of uncertainty.
As written, the bill has many gaps. The Liberals must clarify, sooner than later, a number of practical implications.
For example, will the offshore boards need more resources for technical expertise or personnel, or more funding to fulfill the additional responsibilities? If so, who will pay for it? What is a realistic expectation of when the regulators would be fully ready for the work outside of their current scope? What about the responsibility for health and safety regulations for renewable energy projects at sea, which are currently the job of the respective offshore boards on offshore rigs and under the department of labour on land? These obligations should be clearly defined jurisdictionally in the bill.
What about environmental considerations relating to offshore renewable projects? The boards, the truth is, currently have no experience in activities around wind, tidal and other sea-based energies that may disrupt ecosystems and seaweed growth; harm sea birds, whales, fish stock, lobster stock; or interfere with organisms that live on the sea bed, like anemones, corals, crabs, sea urchins and sponges. What provisions are needed for the regulators to adequately assess risks to key habitat and vulnerable species?
I cannot imagine, nor would I ever suggest, that the NDP-Liberals will add upstream emission requirements as a condition for such approvals, like it did, along with downstream emissions, in a double standard deliberately designed to kill the west to east pipeline that could have created energy self-security and self-sufficiency for Canada, by refining and exporting western resources on the Atlantic Canadian coast for export. European allies and Ukrainians definitely would appreciate that. However, it would certainly be a significant hurdle if they did, given what is really involved in the manufacturing of steel and concrete for offshore renewable projects, which create a lot of hazardous waste on the back end, for example. If the Liberals actually cared about the cumulative impacts, like they always say they do, they would clarify all of that in this bill also.
The Liberals must account for these considerations. At this point, after eight years, Canadians should be skeptical if the government says that it will work out the details later or in regulations after the fact. That has alway been a disaster under those guys, no matter the issue.
On top of these unanswered questions, the reality is that the bill would triple the timeline for a final decision on alternative energy projects and would give political decision-makers the ability to extend that timeline potentially indefinitely.
If this all sounds familiar, a lack of details on crucial issues, uncertainty around roles, responsibilities or requirement, and timelines that actually have so many loopholes for interference that no concrete timelines really exist at all, that is because it is. This is what the Liberals did in Bill C-69, which the Conservatives warned would help prevent any major pipeline projects from being approved or even proposed in Canada since it passed in 2019. It has become a gatekeeping roadblock to private sector proponents in all areas of resource development and the pursuit of major projects in Canada.
The reality is that companies will not invest billions in building energy infrastructure in Canada's uncertain fiscal and regulatory framework, where excessive and duplicative red tape means there is no consistency or certainty in the assessment process, no clear rules or a path to completion, and no guaranteed return on investment, which can all be lost at the whim of a government minister's unilateral decision.
As much as the Liberals wish it were true, alternative energy projects are not in a separate magical category from oil and gas, where they are somehow immune from these basic economic and fiscal considerations, except for those publicly funded through subsidies or paid for by utility ratepayers, definitely a significant proportion of renewable and alternative energy to date, especially outside of Alberta, where it is done by the private sector primarily. The fiscal and regulatory framework is a crucial and definitive aspect of what private sector proponents politely call the “lack of a business case” every time a major project is halted or abandoned after years and millions of dollars of working toward it, usually moving their focus and tragically their money, jobs, innovation, initiative, creativity and expertise to other countries. The Liberals have already created these same adverse conditions for wind, solar and tidal as well.
Let us take the Pempa'q tidal energy project in the Bay of Fundy. It would have provided clean, green energy to Nova Scotia's electrical grid and could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in investment and significantly reducing emissions. However, after repeated delays, a tide of Liberal red tape and “Five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges” the proponent withdrew, and it folded.
Sustainable Marine was not the only victim of multiple layers of red tape that involved departments. Other renewable projects, like a pulp mill that would have created biodegradable plastics from their waste stream, left Canada because the Liberals told the proponents that the approval phase under their gatekeepers would take 20 years.
The bottom line is that energy companies, like any company, need certainty to invest, whether in the oil sands, natural gas, critical minerals, pipelines, hydrogen, petrochemicals, wind or solar farms or hydroelectricity. Proponents need concrete timelines, consistent, well-defined and predictable regulatory measures. They need to be confident that a government will respect jurisdictional responsibilities, be willing to enforce the rule of law and take action if necessary for projects after approval so proponents can know that if they follow the rules, meet the conditions and act in good faith, they will be successful.
Companies and the regulators also need to account for possible risks posed to local activities, most notably the impacts of offshore wind development and other technologies on the livelihoods of Atlantic fishers and lobstermen.
In this case, all impacted parties need to be involved in the consultation process from the get-go. Unfortunately, the Liberal's Bill C-49 creates the opposite for both alternative energy sources and offshore oil and gas. When it comes to crafting anti-energy legislation, the Liberals, with their NDP power broking coalition, just cannot seem to help themselves. Sections 28 and 137 of this bill give the government the power, as I mentioned before, to completely end any current offshore drilling for oil and gas, as well as any offshore alternative energy development. Obviously, that is an immediate threat to the sector because of the uncertainty, even for existing operations, and it risks any future projects in these provinces by designating prohibited development areas.
Notably, the bill states that any activity may be suspended in those areas. That obviously includes offshore petroleum drilling and exploration, but the language could also include offshore wind and other alternative energy development. One thing that is predictable is this pattern because it is similar to a previous Liberal bill, Bill C-55, which allowed a government minister to unilaterally designate any marine area in Canada as a prohibited development zone.
The Liberals must answer whether their increasing targets and the language in Bill C-49 would cancel and/or prohibit both traditional and renewable energy projects if located in those areas. What are the restrictions? How could developers make investment decisions if the areas where they operate may suddenly be declared prohibited?
The Liberals are so comfortable with their nearly decade-long pattern of piling on layers of anti-energy, anti-development and anti-private sector laws, policies and taxes on Canada's key sectors that they hinder both traditional sources of energy, which they recklessly want to phase out prematurely, and stand in the way of the renewable and new technologies they purport to want.
This discussion cannot be removed from the context of Canada still operating, or rather more accurately not operating, under the rules and red tape the NDP-Liberal government imported into this bill.
Bill C-69 completely erased the concept of having any timelines for approving energy infrastructure, and instead allowed for limitless and indefinite extensions of regulatory timelines, as we warned. Unfortunately, this just creates a swath of potential maybes on project applications because of the potential for suspensions and delays, and the uncertainty about measures for applications and outcomes.
With Bill C-69, as many Canadians said at the time, the Liberals might as well have hung a sign in the window that said, “Canada is closed for business”. What is clear, and should be stunningly and frankly, through this total travesty, clear to all Canadians by now, is that clear timelines and requirements, as well as predictable rules and responsibilities, provide certainty for private sector proponents, which benefits the whole country.
After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada ranks 31st among peers in the burden of regulations, as of 2018, and is less than half as competitive as the OECD average in administrative burdens on energy project start-ups. Canada is second-last in the OECD for construction permits, only ahead of Slovakia, and 64th in the world for building permits.
The Liberals touted creating certainty and predictability for energy companies with clear rules and regulations to follow, but the actual bill created a massive new web of poorly defined criteria for companies and gave cabinet ministers the power to add any criteria to the list that they wanted at any time. There is no predictability or consistency. Bill C-49 is an extension of that pattern.
Another concerning part is the provisions that specify the regulators in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as the parties responsible for indigenous consultation for offshore oil and gas and affordable energy projects. I must say that Conservatives believe in greater authority and autonomy for provinces to govern their own affairs. We want less Ottawa. Conservatives believe in smaller governments and a shift of power to individuals and local communities. The many indigenous communities where I am from, and those from across the country, who are reliant on and depend upon traditional and alternative energy development, all say the same thing.
However, I want to caution the NDP-Liberals that this section may invite court challenges if it is not clarified, which would create even more costly delays in an already drawn-out and unpredictable process. Through years of extensive legal challenges, precedent and judicial decisions on major energy infrastructure, courts have emphasized that it is the Crown's duty to consult indigenous people and that a failure on the part of the government to ensure a two-way dialogue, and that actual decision-makers are at the table during the consultation process, is what has overturned approval decisions.
That was the case with the Liberals' approval of the Trans Mountain expansion under their own process. Indigenous consultation was overturned and the minister had to spend months meeting with indigenous communities to redo it. Of course, they could have also done that with the northern gateway pipeline before that, and they would have saved everyone time and money later on with TMX. Instead, the Prime Minister vetoed northern gateway, blocking exports from the west coast to countries in Asia that desperately need our energy and killing all of the equity and mutual benefit agreements for the 31 indigenous communities along the pipeline that supported it, but I digress.
As currently drafted, this bill explicitly delegates the regulators as responsible for indigenous consultation. It is silent on the Crown's particular duty to consult, and it also shifts the power of final decision-making to federal and provincial government ministers.
On top of the fact that indigenous leaders often consider a federal minister specifically as the appropriate decision-maker to engage with them, if current or future governments rely too much or exclusively on the regulators for all assessments not captured by the Impact Assessment Act's consultation process, as is suggested in this bill, this section risks court challenges to proposed and approved projects in the long run and jeopardizes future offshore renewable and petroleum projects.
The impact of the uncertainty created by the Liberal government cannot be overstated. It takes Canada out of the global competition for energy development, punishing the best in class, and cedes market shares to dictators and regimes with far lower environmental and human rights standards. It costs Canada billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it robs Canadians and Canada's free and democratic allies of many irreplaceable opportunities, of energy security and of hope for the future.
I believe the impact on provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia deserves special attention. Anyone who has worked in Alberta's oil patch has no doubt worked together with many Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians. Certainly, that is where my own family came from.
My mother was from Newfoundland. My father was from Nova Scotia. My grandmother was the first female mayor of Dartmouth, and I am a first generation Albertan.
My own constituents have been hit hard by the hostile, divisive NDP-Liberal government. Other than the people of Saskatchewan, our neighbours who are often interchangeable citizens based on the free enterprise policies of our respective provincial governments at any given time, the people most concerned about the damage done to Alberta are consistently Atlantic Canadians.
I wish that more of our neighbours could hear directly from Atlantic Canadians, who are always effusive in their reverence for Alberta and our main industries. Atlantic Canadians share with Albertans a feeling of distance and neglect from Ottawa. They are concerned about the exact same consequences of NDP-Liberal policies, and the skyrocketing costs of living, as well as those of fuel and food prices. They are being forced to choose between heating and eating, and they are concerned about a reliance on energy sources, for which there are few affordable or immediate options. They are worried about how to make ends meet and are wanting to hope for the future.
Thousands of people from Atlantic Canada, every year, come to Alberta to support their families and communities through the array of diverse opportunities offered by Alberta's globally renowned energy and renewable energy sectors. Alberta has steady work and high-paying, quality jobs that contribute revenue to all three levels of government for the public services and programs that Canadians rely on.
That impact was unprecedented. In 2014, for example, nine out of every 10 full-time jobs created in Canada were created in Alberta, and every job in the oil sands creates two indirect and three induced jobs at home and in other regions and provinces.
While public enemy number one for the NDP-Liberal anti-energy and anti-private sector policies during the last eight years has been Alberta, the truth is that the costly coalition's approach hurts the whole country, especially Atlantic Canadians.
While Albertans and Atlantic Canadians are inextricably linked and have helped to build each other's provinces, there is always a human cost to having to move away for work. Generations of parents, grandparents and great-grandparents spent a hundred years working hard to build lives, businesses, farms and futures for their kids. Now their children and their grandchildren are being forced to seek out opportunities elsewhere.
Legacies left behind is the very real generational impact of anti-development and anti-resource policies. Conservatives, in conclusion, want to see the same opportunities. We want to see the same high-paying, quality jobs for people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as there are for those in Alberta and for every Canadian.
Conservatives want families to be able to stay together, parents to be able to see their kids, cousins to know each other and people to be able to build upon legacies secured by generations before them.
3207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the work she's done on natural resources over the years, and I am looking forward to working with her more closely in the coming years.
The member talked at great length about other bills and other issues not related to Bill C-49. This bill is looking at creating jobs and attracting investment. That has been the federal government's approach. Could the member explain why both provincial premiers, Premier Furey and Premier Houston, are supporting this bill? Could the member explain if the Conservative Party will be supporting this bill, supporting the premiers, supporting investment and supporting jobs with Bill C-49?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I sure did enjoy our time together on the natural resources committee in my first term.
I spent a lot of time talking about Bill C-49. Aspects of this Bill C-49 are imported from bills such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-55. I talked about them to give context for policymakers, elected representatives in this debate and all Canadians.
I suspect the provinces of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador are supportive of the intent of this bill because they also want to have effective, efficient regulatory frameworks for both petroleum and alternative energy offshore development. A crucial thing that we support in this bill is that this does include the requirements of provincial ministers to be consulted in the case of any of the decision-making around development areas, regulations and the framework for development offshore.
Obviously, those provincial governments should be partners. I suspect that is why they support it. Of course, that does stand in contrast to the provincial governments the Liberals attack on energy when they disagree with them.
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple.
The bill we are looking at appears to continue the Liberal trend. In other words, it claims to promote renewable energy, but, in reality, it makes no changes to the status quo and continues to encourage the development of the oil industry.
We think that the government needs to start gradually reducing the size of that industry. My question is going to focus on two aspects.
First, does the member think we need to start taking action to slow the effects of climate change?
Second, during the study of this bill, is my colleague ready to start talking seriously about gradually, sensibly and intelligently reducing the size of the oil industry? Of course, the transition to renewable energy will include support for those who work in the oil industry.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this the key philosophical dividing point between Conservatives and every other party in the House of Commons, which Canadians should know. Conservatives recognize the reality that multipronged, private sector energy companies are involved in the development of innovation and technology across the entire expanse of the different kinds of oil and gas production, as well as all kinds of different sources of energy production. Certainly in Alberta's case, that stands as an example with the oldest and largest-scale commercialized solar and wind farm. That has been going on for decades, funded mainly by oil sands and pipeline companies.
Here is where Conservatives stand: Global demand for oil and gas will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Conservatives believe that Canada should be the supplier of choice for our responsible oil and gas products and technologies, which would help lower global emissions and are produced under the highest standards in the world. It is—
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 11:16:27 a.m.
- Watch
We have to allow for other questions.
Continuing with questions and comments is the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. I love being on committee with her, and we have lots of great discussions.
I am really fascinated by my colleague's concern about driving investment out of Canada. Exhibit one is Danielle Smith. There is no place on the planet that has more opportunity for clean energy than Alberta, but it has a premier who believes that the world is 5,000 years old and that dinosaurs existed at the same time as Fred Flintstone. She has shut down huge opportunities in clean energy.
Alberta has lost 91 projects, worth $33 billion, at a time when the Biden administration is moving ahead with $110 billion in opportunities. We have huge opportunity in Alberta being shut down and driven out of the country by the bizarre talk of Danielle Smith.
Is my hon. colleague's leader willing to tie himself to Danielle Smith's stagecoach to nowhere, or will the Conservatives be willing to compete for clean energy in Alberta?
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too enjoy working with my colleague on the natural resources committee and have gotten to know him over the past couple of years. I also enjoy his CDs, even though we give each other the gears on a very regular basis because of our divergent world views.
Quite frankly, I am confused as to why the member does not see the wisdom in having a world-renowned renewable energy development jurisdiction, starting on the front end to implement clear requirements, clear conditions and clear accountability to Albertans through the entire process, as well as remediation and reclamation. This would help set attractive investment conditions for alternative energy development and build confidence among Albertans in the long term for the development of those projects. That is an important, responsible tactic that a provincial government must take. It should not be surprising since the province has always led in regulatory standards for all kinds of energy development.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lakeland is probably the only one in the House who will not be surprised by what I am going to say, which is that Bill C-69 was not in the interests of environmental assessments in Canada. It was so poorly designed. It was all discretionary. There were no timelines.
The only thing that made environmentalists think it was a good bill was that Jason Kenney called it the anti-pipeline act. It could just as easily have been called the pro-pipeline act because it is discretionary and lacks the basics that have been in our environmental assessment law since the mid-1970s through to the early 1990s, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney brought forward a very good environmental assessment act.
My hon. colleague from Lakeland knows that we will disagree on the notion that we want to expand oil and gas demand across the world and that there is any such thing as responsible oil and gas. There are only fossil fuels, and burning them destroys our future.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do recall finding interesting points of agreement on Bill C-69 around the arbitrary, unilateral and unclear impacts of that bill, but as she noted, we had wildly diverging world views and aspirations for the energy sector in Canada.
Since we are debating this federally, let me just emphasize what Conservatives believe. We believe in lower taxes and less red tape, and the elimination of duplicative and onerous regulations so businesses can thrive. Conservatives want Canada to be the supplier of choice for our responsible oil and gas development, for our own energy affordability and security and for our allies.
As prime minister, our Conservative leader would green light green technologies so brilliant engineers can advance more affordable electricity. We would reduce approval timelines for all energy projects, and remove unnecessary, duplicative red tape and punishing taxes so that entrepreneurs and companies can invest in Canada and so that major energy and infrastructure projects can actually get built in this country. This is unlike the NDP-Liberals, who gatekeep, roadblock and make traditional energy more expensive while delaying and driving out new energy opportunities.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
