Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak in the House this evening in regard to Motion No. 61, put forward by the member for Edmonton Manning. The title of the motion is “Support of oil and gas sector”.
I agree with the member that fossil fuels have brought wealth to Canada. I know that the motion comes from concern for the workers in this sector, and I share that concern. However, the substantial benefits have come at a great cost, and we must admit that and quickly find a new way forward, a path without fossil fuels. I therefore disagree almost entirely with the sentiment and substance of the motion.
There are eight substantive parts in the motion. I would like to go through them one by one, just as the member for Jonquière did.
In (a)(i), the motion states:
replacing oil and gas with more environmentally sustainable options is not technologically or economically feasible
That simply is not true. It reflects the complete lack of understanding among many Conservative members of the House regarding the climate crisis we are in, and reflects their lack of vision for bold solutions that we need to create a livable future for our grandchildren.
When we are discussing the shift to a low-carbon future at the natural resources committee, the Conservative lines of questioning are almost always along the lines of it cannot be done, it will be prohibitively expensive or the people of Canada would not stand for this. The people of Canada expect us to do this, and they are becoming more and more disappointed and cynical about the feebleness of our response to climate change. Options that are more environmentally sustainable are technologically feasible.
The electrification of Canada's vehicles is happening faster than even some of the most optimistic experts could have imagined. Even the Conservatives have admitted this in their belated plan to fight climate change. To fuel those vehicles, we need non-emitting clean electrical sources. Eighty per cent of Canada's electricity is already non-emitting, and renewable energy solutions such as wind and solar projects, combined with utility-grade storage and the strategic renewal of our electrical grid, can be built out to fill in the difference.
Those solutions are economically feasible. Wind and solar are recognized as the cheapest energy sources on the planet. Instead, we see both the Conservatives and the Liberals throwing billions of dollars at the fossil fuel industry, building more and larger pipelines in a desperate attempt to pump oil out of the ground faster and faster at a time when world oil demand is predicted to decline over the next 30 years. That demand must decline, and decline quickly, if countries of the world are to live up to their Paris targets. It must decline if we are to halt the climate change that is already costing us in fire, floods and drought. The cost of that inaction is in the trillions of dollars.
In (a)(ii), the motion states:
Canada’s energy needs require the use of oil and gas to heat Canadian homes
While more and more Canadians are cutting their ties to gas stations by buying electric vehicles, a KPMG survey found that 70% of Canadians want their next car to be electric. One of the lowest hanging fruits of the fight against climate change in Canada is the energy efficiency of our homes and buildings. With a serious program to retrofit our buildings, reduce energy consumption and change the building codes to ensure that new buildings use little or no energy, we can easily get rid of a quarter of our carbon dioxide emissions.
In (a)(iii), the motion states:
Canadian oil and natural gas are produced with the highest environmental standards in the world
I have no doubt that most domestic oil and gas producers are doing their best to reduce their industrial emissions. The amount of greenhouse gases produced when extracting oil from the oil sands has come down in new projects. Yes, we have some of the highest environmental standards in the world, and Canadians fully expect that, but this cannot change the fact that the oil sands will require an investment of over $200 billion to rehabilitate. No company has put that sort of money aside to do that work, and guess who will end up paying? More and more companies are abandoning thousands of idle wells, with billions of dollars coming from taxpayers to clean them up. A recent study found that all the financial benefits of the fossil fuel industry in Canada are negated by the health costs created by burning fossil fuels.
In (a)(iv), the motion states:
using Canadian resources creates Canadian jobs
Yes, I agree. Our country was built on natural resources. My province of British Columbia is a world powerhouse when it comes to forestry. Canada is recognized as the world leader in mining. Many parts of the country are rich in hydroelectric power, which provides the energy needed by industry and homes.
The oil and gas industry has provided many good jobs over the past decades too, and jobs are obviously at the core of the motion. Workers in the oil and gas sector have either recently found themselves out of work or are increasingly worried about their future in that industry. These are good jobs that pay very well, and I think it should be the goal of members in the House that we create an economy that will provide work for all Canadians, including those now employed in the oil and gas sector.
In (a)(v), it speaks to first nations' involvement in this sector. I agree that first nations should benefit and increasingly are benefiting from natural resource projects in their territories. Oil and gas projects have created situations with different benefit and risk scenarios for different first nations, some getting good jobs and others concerned about contamination of their lands and waters.
In (a)(vi), it states, “tax revenue from the fossil fuel industry is an important contributor to the national treasury”. While, yes, we must ensure that the Canadian economy continues to provide jobs and production to keep that funding available for social and infrastructure programs. A simple glance to the future would tell anyone with their eyes open that we should diversify our industries and tailor them to what the future will need. We need to go where the puck is going.
Investment firms and pension plans are increasingly pulling out of the oil sector. They are not doing this because they believe in climate change and want to do the right thing; they are pulling out because they see no long-term profits in new oil projects, and we need to do the same.
These are the last two asks of the government in this motion.
First, “Canada’s oil and gas industry...is essential to the well-being of the nation and should be celebrated.” Yes, the oil and gas industry has provided Canada with wealth and a comfortable lifestyle over the past 80 years. I am of an age where I have benefited immensely from the strong Canadian economy that oil and gas, and forestry, mining, agriculture and manufacturing have produced, but oil and gas will not be essential in 20 or 30 years.
Second, “tax and regulatory barriers limiting the responsible growth of Canada’s oil and gas industry should be removed.” This is the kicker. The Conservatives believe that all the woes of the oil and gas sector come down to two things, the carbon tax and regulations; the carbon tax they just created in their latest policy on climate, the same regulations that the member for Edmonton Manning praised in (a)(iii), the same indigenous rights that he praised in (a)(v). All the pipelines being considered now were assessed using the regulations created by the Conservatives during the Harper government.
The challenges facing the oil and gas industry are not the making of the current government or of any other government in Canada. They are challenges rooted in the climate crisis facing our planet. They are challenges rooted in the fact that it is cheaper to create electricity with wind and solar rather than with natural gas. They are challenges rooted in the fact that it is cheaper to own and operate an electric car than one with an internal combustion engine. No amount of tax and regulatory changes will change this or will fix this.
This motion comes from a nostalgic view of the past and would do absolutely nothing to help the workers in the oil and gas sector. We must face the facts and build a new sustainable economy that will create those good jobs across our country.