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.
