Bill C-221 (Historical)

Environmental Restoration Incentive Act

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (oil and gas wells)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to establish a tax credit for the closure of oil and gas wells. It also sets out a requirement for the Minister of Finance to make an assessment respecting the implementation of possible tax incentives for the closure of oil and gas wells.

The House resumed from November 16, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (oil and gas wells), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Environmental Restoration Incentive Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to talk about an industry that is so critically important to our country, in particular to give a western prairie perspective on it.

The essence of Bill C-221 is to provide a non-refundable tax credit at a rate of about 13%. There are a great deal of concerns, but it is a bill that I cannot support personally, and I will go into a bit of detail in regard to that.

Suffice it to say that what is taking place in Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to a lesser extent, in Manitoba and British Columbia with the whole issue of natural resources, in particular our oil and gas wells, is of great concern. I think the government has been moving forward in a very responsible fashion, and I would like to highlight a few of things, but first, I will make reference.

The other day there was a question by the opposition about what is taking place in Alberta. Often we get the Conservatives talking about our not moving fast enough on the whole issue of western development. I really appreciated the concise answer by the Minister of Natural Resources at week ago in response to a question posed to him on February 19.

He addressed the chamber by saying:

...let me speak to impending projects in this country. There are 32 oil sands projects in Alberta that are approved and ready to go. They are just waiting for the provincial government's approval or investment from the private sector, but they are ready to go. This is in addition to our support for TMX, NGTL and Line 3. We approved them and are building them. In the case of TMX, we bought it. We are creating thousands of jobs for oil and gas workers because we are proud of them and we are proud of this industry as it continues to lower emissions.

We have recognized, as the minister said, the importance of the industry that we, when we talk about the industry, need to factor in the environment too. When we look at the industry here in Canada, I think it fares quite well, when we compare it with the same type of industry around the world. I believe Canada has played a leadership role, and I attribute that to the workers, the entrepreneurs and some of those businesses out west that are really leading the world in ensuring that we can minimize emissions. It has been referenced previously inside and outside the House that in many ways this is an industry that is going to be achieving net-zero emissions, which is really good to hear.

The bill focuses on wells and what we do when wells are no longer active, and the Conservatives are proposing this tax credit. I do not know to what degree they have really thought it out. For example, it would seem to apply to every company under a set price; I think it is about 100,000 barrels, in terms of the daily average. Outside of that one criterion, it seems that, as long as someone meets that requirement, they would be able to apply. It would not focus federal support on only the companies that need it; it is more a case that we would give the tax credit, no matter whether they needed the support or not.

I believe that the government has approached this issue in a very progressive fashion. In fact, our COVID-19 supports has included nearly $1.7 billion, that is, more than $1.5 billion, in support for those orphan well closures in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

All of us are concerned about workers in the energy sector. There have been some very difficult times, we recognize that, but unlike the impression many Conservatives try to give, sometimes things are beyond one's control. The pandemic is something we could not have prevented. No country could have done that, as this is a worldwide issue.

When former prime minister Harper was leaving office, we started to see a depreciation in world prices. It started before he left office and has continued. When we think of it, oil and gas producers are coping with two crises that have had a very serious impact in the energy sector and the workers in that sector.

I believe the proper thing for the government to do was to look at ways we could assist, and one of those ways was to look at cleaning up those tens of thousands of inactive and abandoned wells. It is not a small amount of money. We are going into hundreds of millions of dollars. As I said, it would be over $1.5 billion.

There are two crises situations, the global pandemic and the aftershocks of the global price war, and now we have companies trying to react and make changes to their operations that are so badly needed. We will come out okay at the end of the day, because we recognized how important it is to be there for the industry.

A number we often hear is that one out of every three workers in the areas of mining, oil and gas were able to stay in their jobs because of the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. We often hear criticisms about the program and how company X received the program or company Y received the program. However, when I look at the literally millions of jobs that have been saved as a direct result of that program, I believe it was well worth the federal dollars to make the program what it is.

The energy sector is a very good example of how a sector within our communities was able to capitalize on a program that will enable the industry as a whole to rebound that much better going forward. Because of the supports provided, we were able to keep people in the workforce.

When we talk about the capping of wells, a big part is the issue of the climate and our climate record. This government has taken many, over 40, different emission-reducing measures over the years. In fact, we are on track to cut pollution by more than any other Canadian government in its history.

I like to think investments in things like public transit, energy efficiency and having a price on pollution all matter. Investing in Canadians and offering support where we can is what I believe this government has done well over the last 12 months, but even more than that, over the last four years.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, introducing a bill is always an important moment in the life of a legislator, and so is the time when that bill is debated.

I therefore commend the member for Lakeland, and I want to explain to her why the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting her bill. In environmental policy, there is a basic principle known as the polluter pays principle.

According to this principle, to which the Bloc Québécois subscribes, it is up to businesses to assume the costs of environmental damage related to their operations. The provisions of the member for Lakeland's Bill C-221 fail to respect that basic principle. The very principle of granting a tax credit in an attempt to force companies to assume their responsibilities would mean funding an industry that is harmful to the environment rather than funding the energy transition. We agree with the hon. member that it is not up to Alberta taxpayers to pay the full cost of shutting down orphaned wells, but nor is it up to Quebec, the provinces and territories. This is the perfect opportunity to recognize the merit of the polluter pays principle and to implement it as rigorously as possible. Until the shift to clean energy is completed so that Canada can move away from fossil fuels, which we hope happens as quickly as possible, governments will have to strengthen their environmental policies and come up with effective ways to hold resource companies accountable.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the polluter pays principle in the Redwater Energy case by overturning a ruling from Alberta's highest court holding that repaying the creditor bank of the bankrupt company should take precedence over cleaning up abandoned sites. The Supreme Court disagreed and said that the priority is the cleanup, that decontaminating the environment takes precedence over repaying creditors when an oil company goes bankrupt. It even specified that the creditors and fiduciaries claiming to have priority were in fact people who benefited from the company's economic activity and who were, as a result, bound by the same regulatory obligations as the bankrupt company.

Between 2016 and 2019, in only three years, there were 28 bankruptcies involving 10,000 sites in Alberta for a total value of $335 million. Over the same period, the Orphan Well Association's inventory grew by 300%. This NGO, also known as OWA, claims to be independent, funded primarily by the industry and under the regulatory authority of the Alberta Energy Regulator. Is that really the case? Let us continue. Its mandate is to close wells, plants and pipelines who are no longer under the responsibility of financially solvent owners in order to protect the public and the environment and to eliminate the potential threat posed by these unfunded liabilities.

If the industry properly funded the OWA to really repair the environmental damage caused by failed companies, would we still be talking about even more taxpayer dollars being funnelled to the fossil fuels industry? The federal funding that the member for Winnipeg North spoke of earlier, the $1.7 billion announced last spring to clean up and close orphaned wells, is taxpayer money. Albertans also fund, through loans, the restoration of hundreds of wells—more taxpayer dollars. What about guaranteed federal loans with public money from all across the country? Even more taxpayer dollars.

The tax credit proposed in Bill C-221 will not prevent the inevitable decline of the fossil fuel sector, especially not for the qualifying corporations the bill identifies. The explosion in the number of sites that the OWA is now responsible for clearly illustrates this reality. It is in the economic interest of the western provinces to diversify. Even the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, says that demand for oil will plateau and will not grow much in the next 25 years, while renewable energy is already growing and will continue to grow even faster over the same period. In this context, we must approach the problem of bankruptcies head-on and make sure that governments reform and tighten their criteria for how companies finance the end of their facilities' life.

Forcing society at large to pay for the environmental costs of an industry that not only degrades the surrounding environment, but puts communities at risk and compromises our climate future, is neither fair nor legitimate.

For public funds spent on closing wells to be considered an investment, such expenditures would need to be made in the wider context of a comprehensive energy transition plan. If such a plan were implemented, making an investment to restore the environment around the wells would be considered a measure to ensure a fair transition. It would have the dual benefit of protecting the environment and supporting energy sector workers during the necessary transition.

However, as a stand-alone bill, Bill C-221 is a tax incentive to support the development of business models and an industry that are making no attempt to mitigate the impact of the environmental degradation for which it is responsible. Any financial support provided to manage the environmental risks that continuously result from the fossil fuel industry must be attached to restrictive environmental regulations, as well as other preventive measures, in order to avoid endlessly exacerbating the situation and the problem.

There is one good program called area-based closures, where well operators work together to minimize the cost of restoring sites. It is a good program and a step in the right direction, but participation is voluntary.

We need to do more to protect the environment and our health and to address the climate emergency. One thing is for sure: Well operators must take note of the Supreme Court decision I mentioned earlier. Provincial governments, for their part, must create regulatory tools tied to taxation laws to enforce the Supreme Court decision.

In the Supreme Court Redwater case, the appellant, the Alberta Energy Regulator, estimated the province's oil and gas liability at $30 billion or more. These massive costs, which are a relatively conservative estimate, are over and above the ever-increasing costs of greenhouse gas emissions, the impact on human health and the destruction of natural environments in the province.

A multi-level governmental review of the fossil fuel regulatory environment, which would empower governments to hold those benefiting from the resource responsible, is decades overdue. The orphan well problem, which is not addressed in Bill C-221, is real, it is current, and it is definitely connected to that.

In conclusion, the Orphan Well Association, or OWA, has had expanded powers since the spring of 2020, powers that were granted in the middle of a pandemic under two amendments adopted to its enabling legislation by the Government of Alberta. According to published information, these powers affect three areas: the role that the OWA plays in promoting the closure of sites; the role it plays in ensuring that oil and gas sites are not abandoned prematurely; and increased financial control to manage sites that may eventually be abandoned, as well as those under its control.

These wells are being kept in good working order, but why? To what end? Essentially, the OWA can now buy up sites before they are abandoned, which helps the company. Then it will clean up the defective sites, which did not used to happen, meaning the industry is relieved of its responsibility yet again. That is the direction that the Alberta government would like to move in with the OWA, which now works in service of the companies.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it is prepared to stand with workers and families in western Canada, but efforts need to be made to break the Canadian economy's dependence on fossil fuels. We have proposed concrete measures in favour of a recovery plan, but we are still waiting for the government's green recovery strategy.

Without a comprehensive strategy, Bill C-221 is just a glorified subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. The Bloc Québécois's position is clear: We are against any subsidy for that sector. The pandemic must not be used as an excuse to make the public pay the high price of environmental damage.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on this very important issue, which my colleague for Lakeland has proposed.

I have listened to the debate so far, and as an Albertan, I am disappointed to hear that other members will not be supporting a piece of legislation that is good for the environment. I have heard people say that it is good for oil and gas companies, but this is about the environment. The member for Lakeland has proposed a means for the private sector to contribute additional funds to remediate oil and gas wells that are basically at the end of their useful life.

I do not know how many members have done this, but I have walked along a well line that was successfully remediated and got its environmental certificate from the Government of Alberta. As far my eyes could see, I could no longer see where the drill pad had been. It was restored to a state of nature, where animals and everybody else could walk and use it on an everyday basis.

This is the result of an inevitable shift from conventional oil and gas to unconventional oil and gas production, which is mostly the bitumen oil sands, SAGD operations and in situ operations. What we sometimes see, ridiculously presented as what happens in the northeast corner of Alberta by, say, the National Geographic, is the open-pit mining, which is the way of the past. Those are very old mines that will be decommissioned in 10 to 20 years.

However, members can look at the legislative costing note provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer for Bill C-221. It is flow-through shares, and this is the solution for decommissioning costs. Yes, there are a lot of oil sites, as the previous member mentioned. The Orphan Well Association is a repository for a company that goes bankrupt or into receivership and returns its energy leases to the people of Alberta when it can no longer operate. There was a fund set up in order to pay for these things.

I hear a member chirping away and disagreeing with me, but it is a solution for private-sector dollars to be put towards an environmental goal. It is not offsetting all of a company's costs. We are talking about wells that produce the equivalent of 100,000 or fewer barrels per day. I think this is what we want. We want the private sector to be more involved in remediating environmental costs associated with production.

In my riding, where Imperial Oil has its headquarters, a lot of oil and gas workers are unemployed, and this would put them back to work. There is a very slight time window that these flow-through shares would work for, which is basically between 2019 and 2026. We are talking about a very small group of wells that would be eligible for this. Companies could use this to offset some of the costs associated with it, but it is for the environment.

The bill before us has an excellent goal behind it. Why would we not support it? It would get people back to work with jobs. It would improve the environment, our landscapes and ecosystems. It offers an opportunity for us to do something that we are going to have to do anyway, which is fix up these well sites, which are all over Alberta, usually on people's properties. They will need to be remediated either way. Again, this is not for companies. It is for the environment.

To me, the downside is that it would cost $264 million by 2026, according to the PBO's cost estimate. However, it would get people who have great technical skills back to work and back out in the field. An excellent way of putting people back into the field is remediating these oil and gas wells.

The industry is the best in the world when it comes to this type of environmental work. There are wildlife biologists, people whose expertise is in rough fescue, which naturally grows in the foothills of Alberta. They are ready to go and do the work required for well remediation sites.

It was only a few years ago when some of the major Suncor sites were being remediated. What used to be an open-pit mine was completely remediated. We now have bison roaming again. It is a natural environment. One would not be able to tell what had been there, if it was not for the giant sign at the front of the site saying it used to be an open-pit mine. We have these large-scale industrial sites all over Canada.

I have known the member for Lakeland for a very long time, even pre-politics. We were in different provincial political parties. I am sure she would admit, and she would probably laugh at this, that we were probably each in the wrong political party. We likely would have identified as being in another one, should we have discussed it then.

However, she has been working at this for a long time. This type of proposal, had it been in place a decade or two ago, would have been able to support the sector and jobs in Alberta. We would not have to just wait for the Orphan Well Association to help remediate the sites for companies who can dig deep into foreign sources of capital to pay for remediation.

This would have been available for the smaller oil and gas companies in Alberta. It would have been available for the private sector. We say we have an ESG goal, say in a hedge fund or an equity fund, and we want to meet those. We have environmental and social goals that our fund investors want to meet. There is an opportunity right there. It would put tens of thousands of people back to work improving our environment and our landscapes. What could be better than that? We are using the Income Tax Act to do it, to offset some of the cost, not all of the cost, of this proposal.

I just do not see a downside to passing such a piece of legislation when the goal behind it is not subsidizing oil and gas companies but improving our environment. I just do not understand why other members of this House who had been in there originally will not support a piece of legislation like this. When we thought about this originally, it was just a total win on both sides. We would achieve a private sector goal, which is obviously to make a profit; and we would achieve an environmental goal, which is the remediation and improvement of our environment and the restoration of it to the condition it was in before industrial work was done on the property.

There is a Yiddish proverb that says, “he that cannot pay, let him pray.” Madam Speaker, I know you enjoy the Yiddish proverbs as much as I do. However, that is the case here.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thoughts and prayers for oil and gas.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hear the same member chirping away again. I am sure it is a different condition out there in Hamilton and the regions that he comes from, but in my neck of the woods, in the southeast part of Calgary, I have a lot of oil and gas workers who have been out of work for years now.

Their severance pay has run out, they have no more space in a home equity line of credit, they are at the limit of what they can afford and the outlook is grim. For many of them, their kids, spouses, friends and former co-workers have moved to the United States or Algeria or South America to seek work, because there is a booming industry worldwide for oil and gas development. That might be hard to believe, but it is still going on. One of my neighbours is an LNG specialist, and he spent time working in Venezuela.

I have a lot of family members who moved out west specifically for work opportunities. Lots of those have dried up, and in connected industries the same thing is happening. We know in Alberta that oil and gas is not going to bounce back to the same as it was before. We have been through this before. Albertans are extremely resilient. This is not the first bust that we have experienced, frankly, and there will be other booms and other busts in the future. We have adapted, every single time, by changing our legislation, changing our regulations and looking after the environment. That is what we do best. That is what this piece of legislation proposes to do.

Through this, I see an opportunity to harness the power of the private sector to invest in things that it cares about. I see these hedge funds and equity funds out there, all over North America, looking toward investing in projects that have environmental and social goals behind them. ESG is the way of the future. Many of them are looking at things like carbon net-zero investments that they would like to make.

My riding is home to one of the most efficient gas turbine electricity-producing power stations in North America, with something like a 98% to 99% efficiency, producing half of the city of Calgary's electrical power. It is hyperefficient. There are barely any people working in that facility, and it has now added on a carbon capture and carbon utilization system as well.

Projects like this are how we are going to get to our environmental goals. Changes like this to the Income Tax Act would help the private sector achieve the environmental goals that we all share in this House. Climate change is real. We have to address it. This is a way to get there because, as I said, “he that cannot pay, let him pray”.

We are done praying. There is an opportunity here to make sure that the private sector pays for these types of costs.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-221, which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act and establish a tax incentive for the closure of oil and gas wells.

I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Lakeland, with whom I am fortunate to serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I can say in no uncertain terms that, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois does not support this bill for one very simple reason that my colleague from Repentigny already pointed out: Bill C-221 is inconsistent with the polluter-pay principle.

What is the polluter-pay principle? It is a basic environmental policy principle supported by all those who believe that the environment is a priority. The Bloc Québécois therefore wholeheartedly supports it. This principle stipulates that companies need to assume the costs of any environmental damage they do.

It is simple. If a party causes environmental damage, then it must pay to fix it. If it cannot be fixed, then the party pays to compensate for the irreparable harm it has done to nature. It is not up to the government or taxpayers to absorb those costs. That would be unfair and illogical. That would mean collectively agreeing to pay to fix the environmental damage caused by oil and gas companies, while receiving no collective benefit from the profits.

That is the problem the Bloc Québécois has with Bill C-221. If this bill were to pass, oil and gas companies would be given a tax credit for assuming their responsibilities. In other words, if we say yes to Bill C-221, we are saying yes to more funding for an industry that we know is harmful to the environment, rather than increasing funding for the energy transition. That reasoning does not hold water in 2021.

Obviously, it is not as if the oil and gas industry was the poor cousin in Canada. As a matter of fact, in April 2020, less than a year ago, the federal government provided $1.7 billion in financial assistance to clean-up and decommission orphan wells in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

It does not stop there. Alberta already funds hundreds of well reclamation projects within its jurisdiction. That province offers loans to oil and gas companies, and the payment of interests is secured by none other than the federal government.

They will say that this support is needed in a pandemic and that workers in western Canada need support. We agree with helping workers and companies in times of crisis, but taxpayers already absorb much of the environmental costs from the oil and gas industry.

Moreover, it seems to me that the pandemic has become an excuse for a lot of things, much too many things. The present environmental crisis cannot be swept under the rug under the pretense that a public health crisis is raging. That kind of rhetoric no longer holds water in 2021 either.

The scientific evidence is too compelling on the cause and effect relationship between the destruction of the environment in the past decades and the pandemic we are living through. We cannot afford to legislate only to potentially hold oil and gas producers accountable. We must enshrine in law the requirement to start the energy transition, and yet, Bill C-221 would have the opposite effect.

Do we believe that oil and gas companies would change their ways if the government compensated them for their environmental mistakes? I think I know the answer: not a chance. Using taxpayer money to pay the environmental costs of an industry that damages the environment, puts communities at risk and compromises our climate future is completely irresponsible.

The member for Lakeland, who introduced this bill, says that it is not up to Alberta's taxpayers to assume 100% of the cost of decommissioning orphan wells. She is quite right, but I am sure she would agree with me that it is not up to Quebec taxpayers to pay for it either.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the urgent need to deal with orphan wells, and we are prepared to support pragmatic solutions to this problem. However, these solutions must meet certain conditions. They must respect the polluter pays principle, they must contribute to an overall effort to make the energy transition, they must come with regulations and, last of all, they must help Canada meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The Bloc Québécois is willing to discuss amendments to Bill C-221 in order for it to meet the conditions I mentioned. In this debate about orphan wells, it is important to have a broader conversation and to be aware of the importance of tackling climate change without further delay. More and more people are insisting that we, the elected members, address this issue.

A 2017 study by the C.D. Howe Institute showed that of some 450,000 listed oil and gas wells in Alberta, about 155,000 were no longer active but had not been completely cleaned up. In the spring of 2020, the Pembina Institute estimated that there were 164,000 abandoned wells in the province. The institute reported that these wells carried risks and expenditures that had not been borne by the owners, even though the owners benefited from the wells when they were active. The same study showed that for Albertans, the potential costs of cleaning up these abandoned wells could be as high as $8 billion, and that was in 2017. Of course, today, the costs would be even higher.

In fact, official estimates by the Alberta Energy Regulator, the only regulatory body for the energy sector in the province, value oil and gas liabilities at over $30 billion. However, internal documents estimate the total cleanup costs of Alberta's oil and gas sector, including the oil sands, at $260 billion. Should Albertans pay the price for the oil and gas sector's environmental carelessness? Should all Quebeckers and Canadians foot the bill? The answer is obvious.

We know that the economic downturn Alberta has faced for 10 years pushed many oil companies to bankruptcy. The province was left with thousands of wells left unattended by companies that did not bother to clean up their mess. That is a huge environmental problem, but it is also a public health and safety issue. These abandoned wells can contaminate the water and the soil, release greenhouse gases and put nearby houses at risk of exploding. It is a growing problem that companies keep sweeping into taxpayers' backyards. So much for being good corporate citizens.

A lawyer from Ecojustice, a Vancouver-based group of lawyers who specialize in environmental law, said that the best way for the province to address the problem of abandoned oil wells is to require companies to make a security deposit before drilling. That would be a more forward-looking solution than Bill C-221. We need to fix the mistakes of the past first.

The issue of orphan wells needs to be addressed, but there need to be strict conditions to warrant having the public cover the cost. Any financial assistance associated with environmental risks, such as the decommissioning of orphan wells, must be done in conjunction with changes to the environmental regulations. Preventive measures must also be taken to stop perpetually aggravating this problem.

We simply cannot vote in favour of a bill that sustains an industry that is causing environmental degradation. Alberta and the other oil- and gas-producing provinces have the power to make regulations that would require the industry to take care of its wells. The pandemic must not be used as an excuse for deregulating the environmental protection sector. There are ways to prevent more orphan wells from popping up in Alberta. There are ways to avoid making the public pay astronomical bills.

Environmental trusts exist precisely to allow producers to share the risk among themselves in case one of them goes bankrupt. Oil and gas companies should be required to maintain enough assets to cover the costs of dismantling and cleaning up their facilities. In the event of bankruptcy, the law should require companies to fulfill their environmental responsibilities before having to pay off their creditors. To avoid bankruptcies, governments should modify their criteria to require companies to finance the end of life of their wells upfront. In short, laws and taxes should be used to prevent problems, not to fix them after the fact.

In conclusion, investing public money to fix the problem of orphan wells would only be justifiable if it were part of a comprehensive, ambitious plan for an energy transition. If such a plan existed, the investment necessary for closing down these wells would have the dual impact of protecting the environment and supporting energy sector workers and their families during the transition.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed a green recovery plan, with concrete solutions for a successful energy transition. In its plan, the Bloc suggests, among other things, that the unused funds from the Trans Mountain expansion project be redirected toward renewable energy projects to create jobs, a large part of which could be earmarked for Alberta to support its green transition.

However, we are still waiting for the Liberal government's comprehensive strategy for a green recovery. Without stricter environmental regulations, measures like the tax credit proposed in Bill C-221 amount to little more than a new kind of subsidy for the fossil fuel industry.

The economic recovery policy should include powerful incentives to encourage companies to move away from fossil fuels and invest in clean and renewable technologies. The Bloc Québécois cannot support a bill that would make taxpayers bear the staggering costs of Canada's dependence on oil. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to stand in solidarity with the taxpayers, workers and families of western Canada on condition that laws and regulations are put in place to end the Canadian economy's dependence on fossil fuels from the previous century.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate.

I invite the hon. member for Lakeland for her five-minute right of reply.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the debate on my PMB, Bill C-221, the environmental restoration incentive act, which is one part of what must be a multipronged approach to a current and future risk that needs resolution.

There is rarely a single perfect public policy remedy to a complex real-world challenge. Exponentially increasing orphaned and abandoned wells are mainly a result of major bankruptcies and a widespread economic collapse, caused in part by Canada's own anti-energy federal government and the 2019 Redwater decision that prevents struggling small oil and gas developers from getting private financing when nearing bankruptcy with outstanding remediation liabilities. The federal government can take real action while provinces do their part.

My bill exclusively focuses on the most financially challenged small and medium-sized oil and gas businesses and fairly proposes to include this tool that is currently available to other sectors, such as exploration development in mining, fabrication of metals and other technologies such as wind turbines, geothermal energy and fuel cells. Before 2017, flow-through shares could be used by oil and gas producers for drilling and exploration too. It makes sense to extend it to the smallest, most at-risk energy businesses in Canada, which cannot secure private sector financing due to their precarious economic positions and liabilities, specifically to encourage the remediation and reclamation efforts that they were doing under normal financial circumstances.

It is a no-brainer. Why should flow-through share provisions be limited to the extraction and production fees of resource development and not be available as an environmental remediation tool? South Okanagan—West Kootenay's NDP MP said he accepts the use of flow-through shares for mining extraction. I wonder why we cannot all agree that they should be used to stimulate private sector financing for restoration as well.

What is very odd is that the MPs who like flow-through shares for production but not remediation also offered support for a colleague's intended bill for qualifying environmental trusts. I supported it also, but the fact is that it would have immediately helped only the largest producers with the advantage of cash on hand. My Bill C-221 helps the smallest businesses on the edge of bankruptcy, businesses that cannot get financing and cannot or will not access the federal government's predatory payday style LEEFF loans or the BDC's co-lending and mid-market programs.

Some colleagues say my bill is a subsidy. I have explained extensively why it is not and I will not revisit that question, but I must emphasize that my intent is to protect taxpayers in the long run and limit public liability. My bill is a discount for Canadian taxpayers.

Canada’s oil and gas sector contributed $493 billion in revenues to governments in Canada between 2000 and 2018. That is $26 billion per year. The PBO says my bill will cost $264 million in total, ending in 2026. It could potentially cost taxpayers everywhere $70 billion for all 130,000 active and inactive wells in Canada today.

Davenport’s Liberal MP talked about the need to support measures that help companies avoid bankruptcy and support our environmental targets. Bill C-221 does exactly those things, but deliberately limits the use of public funds by enabling the lion’s share of financing, specifically for remediation and reclamation, to come from the private sector.

Bloc MPs urged the polluter pay principle. Yes, the Conservatives enshrined it in law, but the fact is that voting against my bill goes against that principle, ignores the realities of small and medium-sized oil and gas businesses and workers on the edge of total devastation, and leaves either a lack of remediation or only taxpayers liable.

My bill is real action, not just rhetoric, on the polluter pay principle to help the most vulnerable energy businesses—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member for Lakeland.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we heard the member say that her Internet connection is unstable.

For the benefit of the member, I know a lot of work goes into a private member's bill, and she does have the right to respond. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow her to restate the last 30 or 45 seconds. We did not hear that, and I think she has a right to be heard.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Can the hon. member for Lakeland start about 30 seconds back in her speech, please?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the generosity. I do not know where I was. I think I am frozen—