Debates of June 12th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Global Climate Change and Clean Energy Leadership

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government has recognized the importance of changing over to a greener economy and energy. We have seen that in budget announcements, in indications from both the Minister of Natural Resources and the parliamentary secretary, as well as other members. We have highlighted the many actions that the government has taken in regard to that transition.

What is a bit surprising and somewhat disappointing is that the NDP, at least in Ottawa, has made the decision that pipelines are an absolute, total no-go. The Premier of Alberta is fighting to protect those union jobs, and many others, by having that pipeline extension. The New Democrats are giving a strong message. I can understand the Green Party, but I do not necessarily understand the national NDP on this issue. It is saying no to pipelines. The excuse is that it wants more consulting and so forth.

The bottom line is that the NDP has given up on the province of Alberta. That is a very clear message. The member is an NDP MP from Alberta. Does she not appreciate that there is a national interest at stake, that supporting the NDP in the province of Alberta is a good thing, and that this is a good thing for Canada's environment and jobs?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my province. I am very proud of my premier, Rachel Notley. Gosh darn it, Rachel Notley already issued the jobs transition plan and committed $50 million. The federal government has done nothing, not one cent has gone toward the jobs transition strategy. It is just another study, just another consultation.

Absolutely, we want to provide jobs for the future. I can read 100 quotes from oil field and coal and gas workers. They want retraining for the new economy when it comes. What happens after the pipeline is built? Then what? Where are they going to work? They are begging the government to invest in retraining.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Edmonton Strathcona and the NDP for bringing this motion before the House today.

Given the member's long engagement in the climate issue, and we were together at the Paris negotiations and at the disaster in Copenhagen, she knows that climate action requires rapid reduction in fossil fuel emissions or we will go above the Paris target of 1.52°.

Does my hon. colleague believe we can expand production of greenhouse-emitting facilities like more oil sands production, new pipelines, and new oil wells, and still meet the Paris target?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly cannot if the federal government does not also invest in other alternatives. Everybody likes to beat up on my province of Alberta, but where is the federal government?

The Conservatives promised regulation in oil and gas, but did not deliver in 10 years. The Liberal government keeps promising that the rest of its pan-Canadian is coming, then it sits on the money that the provinces, territories, and indigenous communities have been waiting for to get off diesel and to transition their workers.

Therefore, I do not believe we will meet those targets unless we have considerable action by the federal government, not just sitting back and waiting for the provinces, municipalities, territories, and indigenous peoples to carry the load.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we heard earlier was the importance of meeting our international commitments. However, what we never hear, and what we have tried to find out from the Liberal government, is the cost of the carbon tax to families and small businesses, businesses that create jobs. The Liberals know the cost, but they do not want to share that with Canadians. It is a hypothetical case that we need to improve, without having any cost or knowing the degree of environmental improvement that will happen.

Therefore, knowing that Canada is such a small producer of greenhouse gases, does the member know what it will cost and what the benefits will be in a drop in greenhouse gases?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the Conservative Party's fixation on the carbon tax bizarre. What was the first jurisdiction in Canada that put a price on carbon? It was Alberta, under a Conservative government, working closely with the oil and gas sector.

The oil and gas sector of Alberta has been on board since day one, imposing the cost of protection and investing in cleaner technologies. However, it is divesting. Major corporations that formally invested in the oil sands are shifting to renewables, shifting to investing in other jurisdictions, because the federal government has not shown the signals that it would like them to invest in renewable energy in Canada for the future for Canadians.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his motion. In many ways, I thought he did a great job in his opening comments and in his motion of summarizing our government's record to date, as well as our vision for Canada's future in this clean growth century.

Among other things, his motion acknowledges our commitment to making Canada a global climate change leader, and rightly so. After all, we did not just sign the Paris accord on climate change; we helped to shape it.

Then we took a leadership role in the creation of Mission Innovation, a new global partnership that is accelerating clean energy solutions like never before.

We sat down with the provinces and territories. We engaged with indigenous peoples. We consulted with Canadians on how best to reach our climate change targets. The result was the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which lays out a path to the clean growth, low carbon economy, a blueprint for reducing emissions, spurring innovation, adapting to climate change, and creating good, sustainable jobs across the country, the very things the hon. member opposite prescribes in his motion. However, we have not stopped there.

We continue to make generational investments in clean technology and innovation as well as foundational science and research. We are making similar unprecedented investments in the green infrastructure that supports clean growth. At the same time, we are putting a price on carbon and accelerating the phase out of coal. All of this leads me to think the hon. member opposite wrote his motion by taking a page out of our policy book. That will become even clearer as this debate proceeds.

Over the course of today, a number of my colleagues will speak to specific elements of the motion, including our comprehensive efforts to combat climate change, such as our record investments develop clean and renewable sources of energy, our focus on promoting energy efficiency, and our plan to protect Canada's oceans and coastal communities.

I would like to begin as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources by setting the scene, explaining how the many moving parts fit together, and how Canada's abundant natural resources, including our vast supply of energy, are a key piece of the clean tech puzzle.

The world is in the midst of something that has only happened a few times in history, a fundamental shift in the types of energy that power our societies. The page of that transition may vary from country to country, but it is under way and it is irreversible.

Climate change is forcing all of us to think differently about how we power our factories, heat our homes, and fuel our vehicles, and about the importance of using both traditional and renewable energy more efficiently.

This is not just another issue. We are not talking about tinkering with a particular government policy or deciding whether to build a road somewhere. We are talking about the future of our planet. We are talking about creating an entirely new direction for our economy, redefining how we see our connectiveness to other nations, and about the importance of global action.

That is why our government is taking action. This year alone we have invested in smart electricity grids, electric and alternative fuel for charging stations, more energy efficient homes, and help for northern communities to move off diesel. Each of these takes us a step closer to the future we want, a country driven by clean technology and defined by innovation.

We are also reimagining carbon by turning otherwise harmful carbon dioxide emissions into valuable products, such as building materials, alternative fuels, and consumer goods.

Just last week we heard exciting news reports about a company on the west coast that had found a way to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into a low carbon fuel for vehicles at an economical price of less than U.S. $100 per tonne. That is where Canadians are taking us with their ingenuity and their imagination. This is the kind of innovation that will transform our economy and create great green jobs for years to come.

Then there is energy efficiency, an area that is too often overlooked. According to the International Energy Agency, improving energy efficiency could get us almost halfway to our Paris commitments. Just think of that: halfway. Thus is why we have proposed new building codes that will require our homes and offices to do more with less and transform the use of energy in the country for generations.

Canadians are helping to lead the way with innovative and novel ways to reduce our energy consumption. Our government is investing in those opportunities but there is still plenty of work to be done, which is why we continue to invest in our traditional sources of energy, and why we continue to develop our vast oil and gas reserves as a bridge to tomorrow's low-carbon economy.

There are two reasons for that. First, as the IEA also tells us, global demand for energy will increase by 30% by 2040. That is like adding another China in terms of energy demand. Even under the most optimistic scenarios for renewable energy, and even with our best efforts at enhancing energy efficiency, much of that increased demand identified by the IEA will have to be met by fossil fuels. The fact is the world will continue to rely on oil and gas for some time, meaning that our conventional energy is not “increasingly obsolete”, as the hon. member opposite would have us believe.

The second reason for developing our oil and gas resources is so Canada can leverage the revenues it generates to invest in our low-carbon future. I will have more to say on that in a moment, but first I would like us to return to the motion before us.

I presume the hon. member opposite's reference to fossil fuel infrastructure is a thinly veiled reference to our government's decision last month to secure the Trans Mountain pipeline and its expansion. Even on that score, I would argue that the hon. member is playing catch-up to our government. Let me explain.

As all members of this House know, our government approved the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement pipelines based on the best science, the widest possible consultations, and Canada's national interest. Those decisions were made as part of a sensible policy that includes diversifying our energy markets, improving environmental safety, and creating thousands of good middle-class jobs, including in indigenous communities.

However, what the member opposite may have forgotten is that we made two other key decisions at the same time. First, we rejected the northern gateway project because the Great Bear Rainforest is no place for an oil pipeline. Second, we placed a moratorium on tanker traffic along the northern B.C. coastline, including around the Dixon Entrance, the Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound.

All of those decisions reflected balance, and our belief that economic prosperity and environmental protection can, and indeed must, go hand in hand, and that there must be a balance. The Trans Mountain expansion pipeline is part of that balance. It is part of the plan that I described earlier using this time of transition to Canada's advantage by building the infrastructure we need to get our resources to global markets and then using the revenues they generate to invest in cleaner forms of energy. By moving more of our energy to tidewater, our producers will have greater access to global markets and world prices, which according to analysts at Scotiabank and others, could add about $15 billion annually to the value of our oil exports.

In addition, the construction and operation of the pipeline is expected to generate as much as $4.5 billion in new federal and provincial government revenues. Those are new tax dollars to pay for our hospitals and schools, to build new roads and bridges, to fund our cherished social programs, and yes, to invest in clean technology and renewable energy.

The TMX pipeline will operate within Alberta's own 100-megatonne cap on greenhouse gas emissions, making the project consistent with Canada's climate plan. For all those reasons it was essential that our government take the necessary steps to protect the project from the political uncertainty caused by the Government of British Columbia. However, as the Minister of Finance has said, our plan is not to be the long-term owner of the TMX pipeline. We know that the TMX pipeline has real economic value and we fully expect that investors will want to be part of the project's future. In fact, we are already seeing that. A number of investors, including indigenous groups, have expressed interest in taking an ownership position.

This is all part of a well-begun journey to our clean energy future, a journey that started as soon as we formed government and set about restoring public confidence in the way major resource projects, such as the TMX pipeline, are reviewed.

One of the first ways we did that was by adopting an interim approach for major projects already in the queue. These principles include assessing direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, expanding public consultations and indigenous engagement, and recognizing the importance of indigenous knowledge, all the while ensuring that no project proponent would have to return to the starting line.

This new approach led to a number of significant breakthroughs. For example, we led the single deepest indigenous engagement ever for a Canadian resource project in Canada, and we responded to what we heard from those consultations by co-developing an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee to oversee the lifespan of the TMX pipeline, as well as an economic pathways partnership to enable indigenous workers to reap the benefits of the projects. Both are Canadian firsts. Our government also appointed a special ministerial panel to hear from Canadians whose views may not have been considered when the National Energy Board concluded its review of the TMX project.

In the end, we approved the project and accepted the NEB's 157 binding conditions as part of our larger plan for clean growth. It is a plan that combats climate change, protects our oceans, invests in clean technology and energy, restores investor and public confidence, and advances indigenous reconciliation.

We introduced legislation, Bill C-69, as a permanent fix to the way environmental assessments and regulatory reviews are carried out in Canada. We have also launched a historic process to recognize and implement inherent indigenous rights, a new approach that will renew Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, rebuild indigenous nations, and set a real path to indigenous self-determination based on mutual respect and partnership. We have tabled budget after budget that promotes clean growth, improves opportunities for indigenous communities, and supports fundamental science. Our budget this year builds on its predecessors by encouraging businesses to invest in clean energy and use more energy-efficient equipment. It also invests in cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, such as energy grids and information networks.

Budget 2018 recognizes that Canada will not get ahead if half of its population is held back, that investing in women is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.

Our government has matched its words with actions, investing to build exactly the kind of future that the hon. member opposite envisions, one where science, curiosity, and innovation spur economic growth. All of these things I have talked about today are part of a solid plan, a balanced practical plan, one with many elements but a single goal: making Canada a leader in the global transition to a low-carbon future by creating the prosperity we all want while protecting the planet we all cherish.

I know the hon. member opposite shares those same goals. His motion speaks to our vision, and I hope he will continue to support our efforts.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words and the principles she touched on. I just wish her government's actions were consistent with those principles. I have a specific question for her.

In its 2015 platform, the Liberal government made a clear commitment to ending fossil fuel subsidies, a commitment Canada had made at the G7 and again at the G20. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has not yet responded to Argentina's invitation to participate in the peer review process for the phased reduction of fossil fuel subsidies.

The Auditor General also reported that my colleague's government had not even defined oil company subsidies yet. The Liberals have been in power for nearly three years, and they still have not defined what constitutes a subsidy, which makes me wonder when they are going to start reducing those subsidies.

Not only are the Liberals not keeping their promises, but they are also behind on their deliverables and are not honouring the G20 process.

How can they say they will eliminate oil company subsidies and then turn around and say they are going to use $4.5 billion in public money to give the fossil fuel industry the biggest subsidy ever?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is bringing up the G20, which is happening this week in Argentina. Canada's membership in the G20 is one of the things that we believe is so important to move a number of the elements I referred to in my speech forward. The elimination of the fossil fuels, which are inefficient, is part of the G20 mandate and certainly something that our government has committed with our G20 partners to do.

On the theme of international engagement, I had the pleasure and opportunity to be at the clean air Mission Innovation ministerial a few weeks ago with 24 other countries talking about innovation around things like carbon capturing, storage, the work that is being done in biomass and bioenergy, and bio jet fuel among a number of other things.

Canada is seen as a leader on the world stage in these efforts. It is one of the areas where I am hoping that the NDP will support our work.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary made so many points that I wish I could agree with. I would point out where she says the government is concerned about energy efficiency, that is one place where they surprisingly have dropped the ball. Bringing in new building codes is great, but it only applies to new buildings. Where are the energy retrofit programs to overhaul existing buildings?

If we want to find a great precedent, look no further than the record of the government under the Right Hon. Paul Martin, the ecoENERGY retrofit program. The budget brought in in 2005 and the climate actions there brought forward by the finance minister who is now the Minister of Public Safety had more climate action than anything we have seen to date from the current government. You can pass him a note and ask for details. To buy a dirty, fossil fuel, bitumen pipeline instead of refining the product in Alberta so we can use it locally makes no sense to the economy and is absolutely sabotage to our Paris goals.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I referred to in my remarks, the International Energy Agency tells us that indeed by 2040 there is going to be an increase of 30% in the requirement for energy. I talked about the transition and the work that is being done. The innovation that is happening in the oil and gas sector particularly is very profound and I have the pleasure of hearing more about it than the average member. I would encourage the member to get a briefing to learn more about what is happening in that sector.

Generation energy was, as the member will know, where 380,000 Canadians contributed to a conversation about Canada's energy future and what it looked like. Energy efficiency was a major part of that discussion. I am looking forward to the member opposite working with us as we move toward looking at energy efficiency, whether it be residential, commercial, industrial, or the like. As I said, I look forward to her working with us on that.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the balanced and practical plan that she is commenting on that the Government of Canada is working on. I am looking at the transition speed of getting off fossil fuels. I know that the NDP and the Greens would like to see us get off fossil fuels immediately. The Conservatives would like us to let the market take its time to get off fossil fuels.

However, the reality is that in order to get off fossil fuels, we need to establish the supply chain for clean technology firms. We have as an example glass for solar panels made in North America instead of China. Guelph has goals to have 100% renewable energy from electricity by 2050 and in order to do that we need to develop supply chains. Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the encouragement of developing supply chains in Canada to support clean technology?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the supply chain and the opportunity for economic development that this transition and this clean energy economy present to the world is around $23 trillion. Canada is poised to be a part of that opportunity.

Supply chains across Canada for various sectors, whether it be the nuclear sector, the oil and gas sector, the forestry, or mining as it pertains to natural resources, are at the forefront of what those innovations in supply chains are.

The opportunity we are seeing within indigenous communities that are close to some of those resources is really quite dramatic and it is part of our reconciliation that we provide those opportunities to our indigenous communities to be part of this clean growth economy and be able to the extent possible to take advantage of every opportunity.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly, in 2015, the Prime Minister came to B.C. and told British Columbians specifically that he would not approve a Kinder Morgan pipeline until it actually went through a proper environmental assessment. He specifically rejected the Harper Conservatives' National Energy Board review and admitted that it was grossly deficient. After the election, he broke his promise.

Instead, Liberals conducted a ministerial review panel, which the panel itself admitted lacked the time, technical expertise, and resources to fill the gaps in the NEB process, and ended up with little more than questions that remained unanswered. It kept no public records of hearings, admitted meetings were hastily organized, and confirmed it heard a serious lack of public confidence in the NEB and its recommendations. This is the panel that the government says was the antidote to the Harper Conservatives' inadequate process. Canadians are not fooled. First nations have called the process paternalistic, unrealistic, and inadequate.

What would the member tell the people of British Columbia, who expected a brand new, proper environmental assessment of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, about her government's desire to purchase the pipeline and triple the exports of bitumen through the Port of Vancouver? Is that what she thinks the Liberals promised British Columbians in the last election?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, this was the most comprehensive, robust consultation in Canada's history on any project.

It is interesting that the member opposite is cherry-picking his comments out of what people said. Based on my conversations and the Generation Energy consultation, there are many Canadians who, indeed, believe in and support this pipeline, which is clearly in the national interest. The fact that we have a natural resource right now that has one customer, being the United States, and 99% of that oil goes to the United States, and the opportunity to get this resource off the coast to international markets, looking at $15 billion to our economy, are elements that, as a government, we cannot ignore. Canadians expect us to do the right thing and, indeed, we have.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to the NDP's opposition motion.

Canada's Conservatives believe that to mitigate climate change we need to support investments in renewable and clean energy technologies. Canada's Conservatives believe that to become a global leader in clean tech and to ensure that future jobs will be located right here in Canada, we need to make the right choices in those investments. Canada's Conservatives believe that spending billions of taxpayer dollars to buy out the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and sending that investment south into the United States is not one of those right choices.

Canada has a world-leading regulatory regime and an internationally renowned track record of environmentally and socially responsible oil and gas development, and we should be proud of that. We should not forfeit Canada's position as a natural resource superpower to grow the clean-tech sector. We should leverage it. The challenge for clean technology is to effect that transition by producing more energy while reducing CO2 emissions. This issue affects the entire global community, including consumers of energy. While government plays a role in spurring investment, we must not overlook the role that the private sector, and the energy sector specifically, play in driving innovation and clean technology advancements.

Andy Brown, the chief executive responsible for Shell Global's upstream business, had this to say on the energy transition and the role the sector has in achieving climate change goals:

A successful energy transition will require vision, urgency and realism: vision for a long-term approach to policy setting, business planning, and investment; urgency and realism about the scale and costs of orderly transformations, both for energy suppliers and consumers. Society has to be ambitious to achieve climate-change and development goals. Decisions must tackle the breadth and complexity of the challenge. Conversely, rapid, poorly considered, [poorly driven] changes could result in unexpected consequences and fail to achieve their intended goals.

Brown concludes, 'The energy industry must unlock the potential we have for new technology through collaboration and innovation....

Last week, Ontarians in my riding and across the province sent a strong message to Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government that they had had enough of unrealistic and poorly considered environmental policy. It has been nearly a decade since Ontario's Liberals passed the Green Energy Act. A key component of that plan, the FIT and microFIT program, saw billions of dollars in green energy contracts awarded to solar and wind companies. The provincial Liberals never provided details of public promises about how much that plan would cost Ontarians, like how their federal cousins will not tell Canadians how much their federal carbon tax scheme will cost Canadian families.

Experts advise the government that technologies such as solar power needed to be developed gradually to prevent renewable energy contracts from overwhelming the province's electricity system and sending hydro bills skyrocketing. Ignoring the experts, the province went ahead with unrealistic and poorly considered policies that it knew were going to be costly, ineffective, and inefficient, policies which cost Ontarians billions of dollars and ultimately cost the provincial Liberals official party status.

This is a lesson the current government would be wise to heed. As the Prime Minister shut down pipeline after pipeline and has ignored the growing uncertainty over the Trans Mountain expansion for over a year and a half, Canadian taxpayers, backed into a corner by the government, found themselves owning a pipeline Kinder Morgan did not need to sell. All that was needed was regulatory certainty for a pipeline project that had already met every possible criterion for approval and certainty that the government that had made those approvals would see them through. The ramifications of poorly considered policies like the nationalization of Trans Mountain, the oil tanker ban, the derailing of energy east and northern gateway, and the job-killing carbon tax are all too clear as investment flees south of the border to the United States and other international jurisdictions.

Royal Bank's president and CEO, Dave McKay, told the Canadian Press that a significant investment exodus to the U.S. is already under way, especially in the energy and clean technology sectors.

That is right, we know the investment climate in Canada is in distress when even investors in renewable energy, where subsidies abound and competing oil and gas face carbon taxes and regulatory excess, are leaving because they favour lower U.S. corporate taxes more.

In early April, NextEra Energy said that the sale of its wind and solar generation assets in Ontario for $582 million was specifically motivated by U.S. tax reform. Jim Robo, chairman and chief executive officer, stated, “we expect the sale of the Canadian portfolio to enable us to recycle capital back into U.S. assets, which benefit from a longer federal income tax shield and a lower effective corporate tax rate”.

The latest data from Statistics Canada shows foreign direct investment in the country dropped to $31.4 billion last year compared with $49.4 billion the year before. The rapidly declining investment climate has important and far-reaching consequences. If we want to ensure Canada becomes a global leader in clean tech and want to ensure future jobs will be located right here in Canada, industry investment will be critical.

In 2016, oil and gas business expenditures on research and design were nearly $1.5 million of the $2 billion that was invested in clean-tech R and D in the energy sector. Nearly 10% of all money spent on R and D in Canada was in the energy sector. Enbridge and TransCanada, the country's largest pipeline companies, both invest heavily in renewable energy.

CGA, ATCO, Enbridge, Énergir, FortisBC, Pacific Northern Gas, SaskEnergy, and Union Gas pool capital investment in the natural gas innovation fund to support clean-tech start-ups, which innovate in the natural gas value supply chain.

As the potential for renewable energy grows and the cost of the technology falls, experts anticipate a growing number of traditional oil and gas companies to invest in the renewable sector. Morgan Bazilian, former lead energy specialist at the World Bank, told an audience of Calgary oil executives in May that the industry has already seen some of the sector's largest companies such as Shell, Total, BP, and others, make billion-dollar investments in renewables. However, to get industry investment in clean tech, there must be industry in Canada to begin with.

Murphy Oil Corporation said it would repatriate Canadian retained earnings and that it sees the substantially lower tax rate in the U.S. as a big advantage for capital investments.

Dan Tsubouchi, chief market strategist at Stream Asset Financial Management LP in Calgary said, in an interview with the Financial Post, that oil and gas companies with assets in Canada waited for the Canadian government to respond to U.S. tax reforms in the federal budget but when “it offered nothing on tax competitiveness”, the next step was to look at redeploying their capital.

In its 2018 report entitled, “Competitive Climate Policy: Supporting Investment and Innovation”, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers makes the case succinctly:

The Canadian oil and natural gas sector is supportive of climate policies that are effective and efficient, and take into account cumulative impacts including taxation, market access, and regulatory review processes. With the right policies in place, the Canadian industry can be competitive, can attract investment and can reduce GHG emissions.

However, current climate and other policies are inefficient and duplicative, and are combining to create unintended consequences such as driving investment away from Canada into other countries that have less robust emissions-reduction policies. This emerging policy environment promotes carbon leakage and therefore does not lead to global emissions reduction.

Once again, unexpected consequences of poorly considered policies, which led to the demise of the Ontario Liberal Party, is leading to the demise of the energy sector in Canada, and with it, the unintended consequence of carbon leakage.

For those not aware, carbon leakage is the shift of greenhouse gas emissions from one part of the world to another, usually because of governments implementing uncompetitive policies. An example of carbon leakage can be seen in Canada as the Liberal government's tax policies increase cost to industry, and as a result, industry shifts its investments elsewhere. The implications of carbon leakage are both economic and emission related.

Economically, we are seeing reduced investment in Canada and the loss of good-paying jobs for Canadian families. Globally, as investment and jobs shift, we will see an increase in emissions, because that production is going to be moved to countries that do not have anywhere near Canada's world-leading regulatory regime. However, there is still time to reverse the course of declining investment in Canadian industry, time to stop carbon leakage, and time to support the growing but fragile clean-tech industry right here in Canada.

Canada's clean-tech energy industry now ranks fourth-highest globally and first in the G20. Canadian clean-tech businesses is already booming, accounting for 3.1% of our GDP, or $59.3 billion. According to the 2016 report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, “De-Risking the Adoption of Clean Technology in Canada's Natural Resources Sector”. There were 800 companies that employed 55,300 direct jobs, with $17 billion in revenue. Clean-tech firms paid 48% more than the Canadian average wage.

Eleven of the top 100 clean-tech companies are in Canada. Global clean-tech market value, by trade, is $1 trillion. Canada's share is 1.4%, or the 26th-largest in the world.

Canada has some great clean-tech stories to share, such as Montreal-based GHGSat, which can track global greenhouse gases from any industrial site in the world using a high-resolution satellite. This technology, more accurate and affordable than its alternatives, enables oil and gas companies to better understand, control, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There is Manitoba-based HD-Petroleum, which has created small-scale waste-oil micro-refinery units that transform used oil into diesel fuel. The cost of implementing this technology is relatively inexpensive, and the recycling process substantially reduces GHG emissions when compared with more traditional oil-disposal methods.

There is lmaginea, which uses its clean hydrocarbon ecosystem to deliver energy produced with the use of zero freshwater and with no toxic emissions or air pollution; DarkVision, which developed a new ultrasound technology that allows companies to create 3D images of the inside of oil wells, enabling them to make more informed and cost-effective production decisions; and Unsist, a company that uses artificial intelligence to help oil and gas companies make better production and operational choices.

These are just a few of the success stories right here in Canada's clean-tech sector. However, as I have said, it is a fragile sector that needs more than subsidies to thrive.

If we are serious about mitigating climate change, if we are serious about becoming a global leader in clean tech and ensuring that future jobs will be in Canada, we need sound fiscal policies and a competitive tax regime in Canada. We need to support the industry, which in turn will support the growth of Canada's clean-tech sector. Industry leaders have told us that they will do this, because it makes sense, it is good for business, and it is good for the environment in which their families and the families of their employees live, work, and play.

Making policy decisions regarding the energy sector is difficult, because on the one hand, we must consider our environmental health and on the other, our wealth as a nation. Clean tech is not meant to make that decision easier. Clean tech is meant to remove the need to make this decision in the first place.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's discussion, especially on clean tech. One of the issues is that there has been a great push to eliminate coal as an energy source. We have some of the cleanest coal operations in the world, and we have the technology that is reducing the greenhouse gases associated with it. However, now that the industry is under pressure, those who were innovative as far as greenhouse gas reductions are concerned they are going to take that technology and send it around the world. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

The other point is that within five or six miles of my place, there are a whole bunch of wind mills. The question is how long it is it going to take to get the cuts in greenhouse gases versus how much it cost to build them in the first place.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question. He is right when he says that the government picking winners and losers does not work. The more government funds this, that, or the other thing, the less innovation we are going to have.

There will always be some innovation. Someone is always going to innovate. However, there is more innovation, more rapid innovation, when there is competition in the marketplace. We have already seen that in the industry. Technology is advancing quickly. Companies are adopting this technology because it is the right thing to do, and that makes sense.

My friend pointed out some parts of the renewable energy sector. There is the other side of it, such as deep earth mining, where the GHGs are actually worse in the long term. This is where the government has a responsibility to let the market decide and let companies invest in technologies they see as winners, therefore creating innovation in the marketplace. We will get to our targets a lot more quickly if the government stays out of the way.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the debate is just getting started, but it has quickly become clear that the New Democrats do not understand the economy, and my Conservative friends do not want to do anything about the environment.

My question for my good friend is twofold. People look at doing things for the environment efficiently, allowing companies in different jurisdictions to make their own decisions on carbon reductions. The member talked about experts in his speech. The experts overwhelmingly say that pricing carbon allows for market flexibility in order to reduce greenhouse gases. Why would the member not be supportive of a market-based system to reduce carbon, instead of just pointing to a regulatory system that is increasingly more expensive and does not do as efficient a job as carbon pricing?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed that in my speech. There are companies all across Canada that are using technological innovation to help reduce their footprints. Most mining companies are now using battery-operated vehicles instead of those that use fossil fuels. The list goes on and on. They are doing this because it is the right thing to do. They are doing this because they are using technology and innovation. They are adapting to this because this is what the market wants.

Pricing a company out of the marketplace only pushes jobs and investment elsewhere. We are seeing that in many sectors, especially in the oil and gas sectors. We are seeing company after company making multi-million and billion-dollar investments elsewhere, outside of our jurisdiction.

Our energy sector is something we should be proud of. We have some of the toughest environmental and labour standards anywhere in the world. We should be promoting this, not running away from it.

If the government wants to price a company out of the marketplace, if it wants to push investment out of the marketplace, I think that is totally the wrong way to go. We will not have this investment the Liberals are calling for and that my friend just mentioned. We need to use more of the carrot rather than the stick to ensure that companies continue to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce their footprints.

As I have said, that is already happening. Companies do not need increased taxes, more regulation, and more red tape for this to happen. It is already happening, in real time. While the Liberals continue to increase taxes, rules, and regulations, investment is going elsewhere.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the natural resources committee for his speech. I was very happy to hear him speak so enthusiastically about the clean-tech industry we have here in Canada that we need to nurture.

I just wanted to set the record straight about what the NDP thinks of the oil and gas industry. We have never said that we wanted to shut it down. We have never said that we wanted to shut it down now. We know that we will be using oil and gas for years to come. However, we think the government should be giving incentives and subsidies to the industries that will carry us into the future, the clean-tech industries the member talked about, as well as for energy efficiency.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I want to bring up the eco-energy retrofit program the Conservative government brought out in 2007. It was one of the most successful programs Canada has ever had to tackle energy efficiency. It invested, over a number of years, almost $1 billion and leveraged $5 billion in expenses the people across Canada spent. It had a huge effect on our carbon footprint and on the pocketbooks of Canadians.

Could the member comment, first, on why he thinks the Conservatives cancelled it, and second, on why the Liberals have not brought it back and instead have punted it off to the provinces, where nobody has picked it up?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is on the natural resources committee and is a valued member of the team. I want to talk as much as I can in the time allotted to his question on subsidies.

I have a few concerns about subsidies, especially when the money runs out. I will take this example from the southwestern town of Tillsonburg, Ontario, where the Siemens Wind Power plant recently closed. About 340 employees are out of work as a result of the provincial Liberal government in Ontario deciding to take away the subsidies for wind turbines and renewables, such as solar panels, and that type of thing. When the money ran out, the jobs ended. That is why I am very cautious about the use of subsidies. I would rather see tax credits going to individuals to put solar panels on the roofs of their homes to take them off the grid and giving them the choice and the decision-making power as to what works for them.

As we all know, most of the technology in the solar panels being used in Ontario cannot be recycled. It is old technology, and there is no incentive to innovative or use better technology, because the government is giving us the base rate no matter what. It does not have to be the best product. It does not have to be the best technology. When the government chooses winners and losers in the marketplace, it stops competition, and competition makes everything better.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for discussing the role of government in this discussion. When we look at Ontario in particular, it was important that we came off the coal plant in Nanticoke. We went from 53 smog days in 2005 to virtually no smog days since 2014. That was because of a government decision on the energy supply in Ontario.

Would the hon. member agree that the pipeline debate we are having, and the transition from subsidies to zero by 2025, will stimulate innovation in Canada in looking for new energy supplies and new ways of delivering energy to Canadians?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I want to credit the former Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, which started the ball rolling on getting rid of the coal-fired power plants right here in Ontario. That is a good news story. I only caution that we all know the story of the Green Energy Act that followed in Ontario and the fact that we have some of the highest energy rates anywhere in North America. That is hurting competition in this once great province, which used to be the manufacturing hub of this country. We no longer hold that title, which is greatly unfortunate. Right now we see Ontario having power that we do not need and these extra Green Energy Act contracts that were given out.

All I will say is that we should not pick winners and losers in the marketplace. We should let the market decide. Competition makes things better. We will get to where we need to be if we do that.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member of Parliament for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I graduated from Trent University in 1989, where I studied the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry as well as renewable energy. For years I studied pipeline politics in environmental and resource studies. I really believed we were in a new time of understanding, that we understood that forcing projects on communities that did not want them and not recognizing indigenous rights and title was not good. I believed that time was behind us.

The year 1989 was also a politically powerful year. The Berlin Wall fell. It was the year of the velvet revolution and Tiananmen Square, a democracy uprising with a brutal police response. It was also the year of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, which hit the headlines in a phenomenal way. It was a time of great political imperative for change and activism, and a time of real hope.

However, I have spent my entire professional life since then fighting bad energy megaprojects: nuclear plants in Ontario, the GSX pipeline through the southern Salish Sea, and the Duke Point power plant off Mudge Island. It took our community four and a half years to fight off that pipeline and power plant.

I hear again and again from my home island of Gabriola, and also from constituents whom I am proud to represent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, that people are hungry to implement a sustainable, renewable, locally based, worker-focused economy. They want to stop fighting off projects they do not want.

I honestly thought that getting elected to this Parliament and beating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives was what we needed to do to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline. I am frankly astonished that we are still here two and a half years later, still debating last century's energy project that was approved for all of the wrong reasons.

It is deeply disappointing to people on B.C.'s coast to have the Liberal government, with all its goodwill, its sunny ways, and its innovation promises, invest $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money into an obsolete, 60-plus-year-old, leaky pipeline, let alone committing taxpayers and perhaps even Canada pension plan money to the expansion of the pipeline. It will increase sevenfold the number of bitumen-carrying oil tankers going through the ridings we represent.

I am astonished that we are here still discussing that, but I am delighted that our leader Jagmeet Singh and our party have brought this motion forward and taken over today's agenda to talk about our hope for a renewable and sustainable, worker-focused economy, and all the benefits that can come from that.

We have examples in my riding of great success stories, despite all the impediments that have been put up by the B.C. Liberal Party over the last 16 years and the federal Conservatives for 10 years. Despite these impediments, I am really proud of the local innovation.

Nanaimo's Harmac Pacific mill has a generation capacity of 55 megawatts of power, which it produces from biofuels and waste wood in its facility. The Greater Nanaimo Pollution Control Centre captures methane, which would be a fairly calamitous greenhouse gas exaggerator, and converts it to electricity that powers 300 homes.

Nanaimo is home to Canadian Electric Vehicles Ltd., which for 25 years has been making industrial vehicles, including electric Zambonis and electric BobCats. That has been happening for some time in my riding.

People are now moving into a fantastic affordable housing facility that has just been built. It is a beautiful facility. It was built by the Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre on Bowen Road. It has a passive energy design, which was started in Saskatchewan. Our federal government failed to keep the passive energy program going, and it moved to Europe, where it has expanded and become more innovative. The Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre affordable housing project uses 80% less energy than traditional home construction, so the residents have fewer expenses. Their cost of living is more affordable, but the homes are also clean, with wonderful air quality. We are really proud of the centre.

This is a Canada-wide phenomenon. Canada's green building sector has $128 billion in gross annual income, and the green building sector employs more direct full-time workers than forestry, mining, and oil and gas combined. That is not a story we tell every day, and we need to tell it again and again. This is where the jobs are now, and if we have the right priorities and support the right trend and direction, we can do even better with that.

The Vancouver Island Economic Alliance has an annual summit. A few years ago, I talked to energy entrepreneurs at that conference in Nanaimo. They said the provincial and federal governments put more barriers in front of their business than anywhere they have seen or experienced in the world. We have local entrepreneurs trying to manufacture and sell on Vancouver Island and across Canada, but they are having to move their manufacturing as well as their sales focus internationally, because they cannot do business at home. That is so discouraging. It is one of many things Canada should be able to do well but has not.

Another great example we are so proud of in Nanaimo is Vancouver Island University. It is right now building a geothermal project. It is inserting down into old coal mining shafts in our riding. Nanaimo was originally built on coal, so that coal history will now move to geothermal, where they are going to be able to pull from the natural heat of the ground to heat the whole university complex and new residences. It's going to be a real showcase, and it is going to be a way to show young people the possibilities in innovation and the jobs they can generate.

I have also met people out in the community, in Ladysmith in particular, where we have a lot of people who have been migrant workers within our own country, living on Vancouver Island and flying to Alberta for work. It is very dangerous and hard work. It is hard for them to be away from their families. Often, people come home with addictions or injuries.

I now bump into people who have returned, whether they learned vertical drilling in the oil and gas sector and are now bringing that back to our region to utilize that same technology and expertise for geothermal power, or whether they are simply doing residential solar installations. I hear these young men in particular tell their friends to come home, that it is safer, the work is steady, and they can sleep in their own bed and keep their family together. That is the work our government should be doing to encourage such a transition.

While I have the floor, I need to do a bit of myth busting on the Kinder Morgan investment. I keep hearing, including just now from the parliamentary secretary, that we need to find the Asian markets. Crude exports from Vancouver to China topped out in 2011. They were at that time only 28% of outbound shipments. By 2014, they had dropped to 6%. By 2016, they were essentially zero. Right now, we do not have Asian markets hungry for our unrefined bitumen. It is simply not borne out by the facts.

We also hear about the imperative for jobs. In fact, the experts say that every time Canada ships 400,000 barrels of unrefined bitumen abroad, it is exporting approximately 19,000 refining and upgrading jobs every year to other countries.

The $15 billion that we are apparently losing by not accessing foreign markets has been rebutted again and again. Robyn Allan has done this powerfully. The natural resources minister keeps saying it is a $15-billion differential. In fact, the original source was Scotiabank. It says $7 billion, and it is a deep investor in Kinder Morgan. Therefore, we must be extremely careful about agreeing with any of the Prime Minister's promises about economic output.

It is to the deep dismay of British Columbians that this investment would risk the $2.2-billion fishery and aquaculture sector. It risks tens of thousands of jobs that exist right now in British Columbia, whether they be in film, tourism, or fishing, and billions of dollars in economic activity that results from a clean coast.

I ask the government to please let us truly innovate with green jobs in the next century's work and energy, not the Kinder Morgan pipeline.