Madam Speaker, I am virtually here in the House today to speak to Motion No. 61, which was put forward by the member for Edmonton Manning. It is entitled “Support of oil and gas sector”. There is no doubt that fossil fuels have brought wealth to our country. I believe that this motion is based in concern, a very real one, about the workers in this sector. It is a concern that I share.
With respect to the great benefits we have received because of this sector, I hope that all members of the House are ready to recognize and accept that it is time to find a new path forward. The reality of climate change is that it is happening across the planet. It is changing our world in a way that scientists are telling us about again and again. There is no time to wait. It is time to move forward and be progressive.
I hear all too often from the Conservatives in this place that Canada has just a tiny portion of emissions compared with those of other countries. That is simply not the case, and I am working for a country that I want to see as a leader and an innovator in facing the worldwide climate crisis.
Recently we conducted a study at the committee of indigenous and northern affairs on food security in the most northern communities of this country. Again and again, we heard testimony from those communities that the impacts of climate change are at the top of the list. The environment in their communities is changing so quickly that there is absolutely no time for them to adapt, and with the high cost of food, this reality is leaving people behind and hungry.
This motion has eight substantive parts. Today I will address several of them.
First, the motion states:
(i) replacing oil and gas with more environmentally sustainable options is not technologically or economically feasible
That is simply not true. These statements are frustrating to me. There was a time when the technologies of today did not exist. They exist now because of the significant investment of visionaries who saw the world in a new way. The reality is those people are here now, and technologies that are more sustainable are developing quickly. Investments are happening, and it is high time the Government of Canada increased its support to innovation.
I am also frustrated by this comment because of the simple reality that we are talking about a non-renewable resource. That means it will end. The Conservative vision seems to believe that we will still be here, on this planet, if we keep using this resource in the way we are today. I do not agree with this idea and I say this confidently, knowing that most scientists in the relevant fields keep saying repeatedly, in so many different ways, that this is happening, that the climate crisis is here and we fundamentally have to change. The fact that Canada, the government, is not listening is terrifying to me. It is time for bold solutions and investing in a future that leaves our children with a planet that is livable.
All too often when we discuss the shift to a low-carbon reality, Conservatives repeat that it cannot be done, that it is too expensive or that people in Canada do not believe in or stand to support it. Whenever I hear this, it makes me think of a leader I greatly admire, who once told all Canadians “Do not let them tell you that it cannot be done.” What I hear is that the people of Canada expect us to do this. They are becoming more and more disappointed and cynical about feeble government responses to climate change.
Options that are more environmentally sustainable are technologically feasible. The electrification of Canada's vehicles is happening. It is happening faster than was expected. Even the most optimistic experts could not have imagined the progress we are seeing. The results are in: A KPMG survey found that 70% of Canadians want their next car to be electric.
Conservatives admitted this in their late and somewhat confusing plan to fight climate change. I am still a little concerned about their membership voting on whether or not climate change is real, when scientists have been very clear, repeatedly. I am also concerned about the other reality, that Conservatives are unclear on their position regarding climate change and what is happening in our environment. Hopefully, we will see some clarity soon.
Canada knows that to fuel electric vehicles we need non-emitting, clean electrical sources. Already, 80% of Canada's electricity is non-emitting. Renewable solutions like wind and solar projects, combined with utility-grade storage and strategic renewal of our electrical grid, can be built to fill in the difference. These solutions are economically feasible. Wind and solar are the cheapest energy sources on the planet.
Even with this knowledge, Canadians watch as both Conservatives and Liberals throw billions of dollars at the fossil fuel industry, building more and more, larger and larger pipelines in a desperate attempt to pump oil out of the ground faster, right at a time when the oil demand is predicted to decline. The demand must decline, and decline rapidly. As countries look to live up to the Paris targets, it must decline if we are to halt the horrific impacts of climate change. The cost of this inaction is in the trillions of dollars.
Second, the motion says, “Canada's energy needs require the use of oil and gas to heat Canadian homes”. Energy efficiency in our homes and buildings in Canada is one of the lowest-hanging fruits in the fight against climate change. If Canada invested in a serious program to retrofit buildings, reduce energy consumption and change building codes to ensure that new buildings use little to no energy, we can easily get rid of a quarter of our carbon dioxide emissions. The technology is there. Again, Canada needs to ensure that the investment is supported.
The motion also states, “Canadian oil and natural gas are produced with the highest environmental standards in the world”. There is no doubt that most domestic oil and gas producers are doing their very best to reduce their industrial emissions. Yes, we have some of the highest environmental standards in the world, which Canadians expect. This does not change the fact that the oil sands will require an investment of over $200 billion to rehabilitate. This is very concerning, as no company has put that sort of money aside to do this work. In Canada, we see companies abandoning idle wells, and billions of taxpayer dollars will be spent to clean them up.
This motion also states that Canadian resources create Canadian jobs. Our country was built on natural resources. That is why I brought forward Motion No. 53, “Principles for a sustainable and equitable future”. The history of Canada is one rich in resources and the extraction of resources. The reality is that things are changing, and as they change, workers need to be at the core of the solutions. My motion addresses this by asking for workers to be supported during the change and that resources flow from the federal government to all ridings in this country.
Most high-resource industry areas are in rural and remote areas in Canada. Significant wealth has come out of those regions, and when resources change or are limited, they area often left behind. My motion addresses these concerns. While we recognize that addressing the climate emergency is a priority, we also have to make sure that solutions are local and that the potential jobs that are there are invested in to support our workers.
This motion also speaks to the fact that first nations communities receive some income from these projects. This cannot be taken lightly, especially as we must all recognize in this place that where we sit has created legislation for well over 100 years to assure that economic marginalization continues in first nations communities.
As we face the climate crisis, the energy transition is key, and working with innovation and first nations communities must be at the very core of every decision made. We need measures in this country that look at sustainability and support everyday workers, and measures that address fairness and not giving so much power to big corporations that take money and leave Canadians holding the costs of fixing things and workers without a job. The motion does not address this; therefore, I cannot support it.
