Debates of May 21st, 2013

Natural Resources—Main Estimates, 2013-14

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, does the minister agree with the statement that a 2° average global temperature increase is a tipping point for destructive and possibly catastrophic climate change impacts?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, we are of a belief that a significant change in climate would be deleterious.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, between 2001 and 2010, global temperatures averaged .46° centigrade above the 1961-1990 average and were the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records.

Does the minister believe that this is an indication that climate change is occurring?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have answered the question repeatedly. I do not know what all this belief business is about. We have said that climate change is a pressing global problem, and we are acting to deal with it. The nature of our policy response is different from that of the opposition parties.

We believe that we can deal with climate change and environmental challenges and at the same time develop our resources in a responsible way. What is at stake here, on both issues, is a tremendous opportunity for the Canadian population to benefit from the development of our resources and for Canada to be a reliable source of energy for the entire world.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, a study in the journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 4,000 summaries of peer-reviewed papers in journals giving a view of climate change since the early 1900s and found that 97% said that it was mainly caused by humans. It was the biggest review, so far, of scientific opinion on climate change and showed a clear consensus.

Does the minister agree that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is real and largely man-made?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have answered the question so many times, I am not going to answer it anymore.

What I would like to talk about is that those who keep denigrating Canada's record are just plain wrong, and they should know better. Canada has aligned its goals in greenhouse gas emissions with the United States and is calling for a 17% reduction by 2020.

Our government has invested more per capita than the U.S. on clean energy. That is an important point that is not well known.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, can the minister tell the House what the projected growth of oil sands carbon emissions will be by 2020?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the NDP would impose a job-crippling, $21-billion carbon tax that would increase costs to consumers, with no positive impact on the environment.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, it is a real honour to be able to participate in this critical debate tonight. I will be using ten minutes to speak, leaving five minutes for questions at the end.

Today I would like to focus on market diversification and the hurdles we need to surmount as Canadians in order to put our natural resources to the highest and best use for the benefit of the entire country. Our government is working hard to pursue the responsible development of our resources, hand in hand with protecting our environment. I will explain more about that in a minute.

First, to set the scene, the problem that Canadians face is that we are currently selling our resources too cheaply. In fact, last year alone we lost $6 billion in my home province of Alberta. According to CIBC, we stand to lose $27 billion in federal and provincial taxes and royalties every year, not to mention lost jobs in every single province in Canada, because of the lack of access to international markets.

That is $50 million every day, and that $50 million is a loss for every child and every grandchild, and every woman and man in Canada, because our resources are landlocked. That money could be going right now to pay for schools and hospitals, roads and bridges and child care. Instead, Canadians are subsidizing schools and hospitals, roads and bridges and child care in the United States, while they pay us $20 billion to $30 billion below the world price for oil.

There are proposals to build pipelines, as we have heard, to the south, the west, the east and to the north coast of Canada to tidewater, where we will have international market access. I would like to applaud those who are showing leadership in this regard.

Firstly, I would like to applaud British Columbians. We can all celebrate the decision by British Columbians, who in last week's election realized that natural resource development is the key to their future. British Columbians showed us that when people get the facts they make the right decision.

The Northwest Territories government has added a healthy sense of competition by opening the door to a pipeline to the north. The Metis Settlements General Council has just signed an agreement with the Alberta government so that they can develop natural resources in their province. Additionally, aboriginals in several other provinces have signed agreements to benefit from jobs and investment.

Quebec premier Pauline Marois said she would welcome a pipeline extension to the east, to allow Quebec refineries like Suncor and Ultramar to stay competitive, with better access to Canadian oil supplies where other Quebec refineries have closed.

Many union voices are joining this chorus. At committee in the last few weeks, we have heard definitive testimony from the Canadian energy and paperworkers in Montreal and the AFL-CIO in central and eastern Canada. Just today, the united association of journeymen and apprentices said that pipelines, such as line 9 from Sarnia to Montreal and the proposed west-east pipeline to St. John, will keep refineries competitive in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, and will provide new, well-paying jobs. They want our federal government to enable industry to create those jobs and to provide stability into the future.

Quebec's top import in 2012 was crude oil. The lack of a pipeline from west to east meant that Quebeckers were paying a higher world oil price to import the highest percentage of their oil from, guess where, Algeria. That is right. A recent CERI survey showed that a majority of Quebecers said they would rather be buying their oil from Canada.

New Brunswick Premier David Alward is throwing out the welcome mat to bring Albertan and Saskatchewan oil to his province, where Canada has its largest refinery along with a deepwater port to provide ready access to world markets.

What is more is that there is a new urgency to do this, since world supply has shifted dramatically in recent months. Suddenly Canada's oil suppliers are bottlenecked by a lack of pipelines and the world is seeing vast quantities of shale gas and oil being discovered daily. These are going to compete with us for the world markets that we could be serving. India, China, Africa, Latin America and the United States all have found abundant supplies of non-conventional gas and oil.

The early bird will get the worm. However, the Liberals and the NDP, shockingly including the NDP's only Alberta member from Edmonton—Strathcona who is working against her province's primary industry, are opposing our access to international markets and putting Canada at risk of being left out in the cold.

Many of our competitors can develop their resources in a far less environmentally sound manner than Canada. Last year, China's growth more than ate up all of the GHG emission reductions of Canada and the U.S. Dr. Jack Mintz recently reported that in the National Post. The planet will suffer and China's citizens, not ours, will reap the economic benefits, while we literally run the risk of missing the boat to China and losing out on billions in revenue that could be in the pockets of Canadians.

However, all is not lost. I talked earlier about British Columbians showing us that when intelligent people get the facts they make the right decision. What are the facts?

Canadians justifiably want to be assured that the environment and the economy can work together to benefit us all and enhance our quality of life. Let me tell the House what is being done in the area of resource development to protect our environment for future generations.

Industry is dramatically reducing its water usage in the oil sands. It used to take eight barrels of water to produce a barrel of oil and that ratio has been cut in half to four. Water is now recycled four times on average and in some cases six times, a world-leading benchmark.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands have dropped 25% per barrel of oil produced with our government's strong guidance. Just two weeks ago, we saw a significant leap forward in technological advancement. Imperial Oil began production from its Kearl oil sands plant near Fort McMurray, the first plant to produce a barrel of oil with a comparable greenhouse gas emission level to an average refinery in the U.S. A study by the Colorado-based industry analysis firm IHS shows Kearl will produce a barrel of oil at a life cycle GHG emission level below that of California heavy oil.

That should be a game changer for people, busting the myth of the anti-jobs, no development party over there and the notion of the oil sands being dirty when in fact the oil sands can produce with the same GHGs as conventional oil. Kearl is the first plant to reach that mark, but it clearly shows the groundbreaking environmental benchmarks that Canadian companies are reaching through high-tech advances.

Canada has also spawned world-leading green tech companies leading the charge for sustainable energy development and environmental responsibility. Tervita Corporation in my own riding of Calgary Centre is just one example. Tailings ponds used to take 17 years to be reclaimed. Now that time is down to two to five years and in some cases just months.

CTV Power Play's Don Martin even announced last week that the oil sands had cleaned up their act tremendously. In fact, it is worth telling Canadians that only 5 of the 101 projects under way in the oil sands in 2012 were mines. The rest were underground in situ projects. Therefore, members can see why we talk about the myths being perpetuated by the opposition.

Our government has also doubled pipeline inspections in the recent budget and put in place mandatory guidelines for double-hulled tankers that are piloted through our waters to ensure that Canada keeps its over 99.9996% pipeline safety record.

Unfortunately, the NDP members voted against all these measures. They might be asking themselves why B.C. rejected the NDP.

Our knowledgeable and competent natural resources minister has noted that, compared to other countries, we meet or exceed the very best safety records and world-class standards for environmental care. We have toughened our strong penalties for violators, which include the polluter-pay principle.

While the opposition over there huffs and puffs and belches black smoke about our energy industry, scaremongers both at home and in Washington and strives to halt development, the Conservatives know that the industry can and is co-existing very happily with the environment.

We are not finished yet, but Canada has already achieved half the GHG reduction levels to meet its Copenhagen targets by 2020, and this is in stark contrast with the Liberals, as greenhouse gas levels rose 30% under their watch.

Finally, I will leave everyone with the environmental moral cause for shipping oil and gas westward from Canada to China. The School of Public Policy's Jack Mintz, Maria van der Hoeven of the International Energy Agency and Dr. Wenran Jiang of the Asia Pacific Foundation all point out Canada is uniquely positioned to assist China in getting off its dependence on coal-fired power by supplying it with clean fossil fuels like oil and liquefied natural gas.

Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to break down some of the myths surrounding development of Canada's miraculous natural resources. Facts surmount fear every time.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend with the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology the launch of the Algal carbon conversion pilot project to be built near Cold Lake, Alberta by Pond Biofuels and CNRL, an oil sands leader. This pilot will not only reduce the carbon emissions of CNRL's oil sands operation in Primrose by 15% to 30%, it is actually going to turn carbon dioxide into a safe, marketable biomass. Bringing this idea to market will benefit all Canadians.

I bring this up because it is one of the newest examples of how Canadian industry, with the strongest encouragement and new regulations put in place by our government, is bridging technology gaps to produce our natural resources more cleanly. It is one of the examples of the interests of energy and the environment merging, growing Canada's economy and benefiting all Canadians, breaking the myths being perpetuated by the opposition.

With this in mind, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary what our government is doing to further encourage the decrease in emissions from natural resources development.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, obviously we work with partners and in collaboration with those partners, our government has made substantial investments in clean technology and industry. For example, $590 million in funding has gone toward Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which has leveraged a $1.6-billion investment. That is a ratio of $3 of investment for every $1 that has been contributed by taxpayers.

Economic action plan 2013 allocates $325 million over eight years in funding for SDTC and that signals our continuing commitment to energy and environmental innovation. The new funding means that the government's total investment in the SDTC tech fund is $950 million to date. Eco-energy innovation is investing $268 million over five years for clean energy demonstration and research and development projects. This will include investments in smart grid and renewable energy in carbon capture and storage in energy-efficient buildings and environmental aspects of oil sands.

The eco-energy for biofuels program will make a total investment of over $1 billion by 2017 to encourage the expansion of the domestic biofuels industry. Everyone can see that we are doing much to encourage the decrease in emissions from development through clean tech funds and new technology.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, one of the hurdles to market diversification is misinformation from the opposition. Both the NDP and Liberals have been engaging in this and our Conservative government is the only party in the House standing up for the environment and the economy.

Canadians and, indeed, all residents of the planet need to know what is happening. I would like to ask the minister what our government is doing to ensure that resources in Canada are developed with the highest degree of environmental protection.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will speak about the oil sands monitoring program that our government, in partnership with the Province of Alberta, has introduced. I am pleased to say that by the time the three-year plan is implemented in 2015, water monitoring sites will increase from 21 to over 40, air sites will increase from 21 to over 30, and biodiversity wildlife contaminant sampling will increase from 3 to 25.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will use my entire 15 minutes to ask questions.

First of all, what portion of the department's $16.5 million advertising budget is dedicated to promoting Canada's renewable energy sector?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have answered the question a few times. However, as I said, I believe the total amount is $600,000. It is $16.5 million in total, but we are talking about advertising.

An amount is set aside for promoting the Keystone project in the United States. We launched the project because it will create jobs in Canada, as well as create economic activity and revenue so that governments can support social programs.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, my question was about the portion of the advertising budget that was for renewable energy, not oil sands.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the program, as I mentioned, is devoted to the issues that will create jobs and economic growth in Canada.

These investments increase our capacity to compete globally and create jobs for Canada. The investments—

[The Chair, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, I assume from this non-answer that there is no budget for renewable energies. I have another question.

What proportion of the department's budget is devoted to developing a national energy strategy in co-operation with the provinces and territories?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, since 2006, our government has invested more than $10 billion in order to reduce emissions and protect our environment through investment in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy technologies and the production of cleaner energy and fuel.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, according to last year's public accounts, $90 million was allocated to the clean energy fund, and $45 million of that amount went to Shell Canada.

Can the minister explain why a fund designated for promoting the transition toward clean energy is being used to finance the big oil companies?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the question shows a misunderstanding of where the money is allocated. We are devoting significant amounts of money to carbon capture and storage, and we are doing that in co-operation with companies, because that is the way to do it.

Our government is a world leader in carbon capture and storage. I was up at the Scotford upgrader project, where our government is investing some $120 million in a project in which the Government of Alberta is putting in $700 million, I believe. That will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by some 45%.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do not think that giving half the green funds budget to a major oil company will help ensure that things improve on this front.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada estimates needing $100 million a year to handle green energy development needs. Despite the investment within the framework of the recent budget, there is still a $60 million shortfall annually.

Will the minister call on his government to fill this gap?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the fact that the NDP votes against carbon capture and storage is somewhat inexplicable, given their pretended concern about the environment.

In collaboration with partners, the government is also investing in clean technology through the funding of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, which has leveraged significant money, and we have just announced an additional $325 million in funding for SDTC, signalling our commitment to energy and environmental innovation. New funding means that the government's total investment in the SDTC tech fund is $950 million to date.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, according to the International Energy Agency, clean energy solutions are not being implemented fast enough. Has the minister read this report?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have read that report, and I have also read the conclusion by the International Energy Agency that 62% of energy in 25 years will come from hydrocarbons, even with the most optimistic possible view of renewable energy. The NDP has voted against all of our measures for a cleaner environment.