- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Lakeland
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,261.63
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I know that the member and I often debate from our opposing world views on the role and necessity of oil and natural gas for Canada and the globe long into the future, but I certainly appreciate her comments on respecting provincial jurisdiction. I know that we share that principle, but the NDP-Liberals think nothing of running roughshod over provincial governments with whom they disagree.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, and the truth is that the oil and gas sector and mining are the biggest private sector employers of indigenous Canadians, with wages that are double the national average. There is a concern about setting realistic timelines and allowing those jobs to continue while the private sector continues to be the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative renewable energies. Does she share that concern?
In addition, could the member tell us how the more than $7 million in GDP and the 438 businesses in oil and gas in Quebec will be replaced?
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we do agree it is the future, which we have said multiple times. We just recognize that the reality that the oil and gas sector in Canada still remains the most abundant, available, affordable source of energy for most Canadians throughout this country and is also the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative energies. What the government wants to do is kill the very sector that leads to the innovation and technology.
The Liberals should answer more questions about how on earth they are going to meet their targets in 2035, when they cannot get critical minerals out of the ground, when they are holding back the ring of fire, when interties do not exist and when there is no grid capacity and no end-user distribution system for Canadians on the back end.
Conservatives are saying, “Answer the questions.” How is this going to get done? When, why and in what way will it get done? Who is paying for it? Then, maybe people could have confidence in their plan. However, we all know they are not—
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I touched on this in my remarks earlier, but the hon. member is exactly right, and that is exactly why Canadians can see countries around the world that are 40 years ahead of us on this agenda now rolling back all of those measures. They are doing the very things Conservatives here at home have been asking the current government to do to protect our citizens' cost of living, future opportunities, standard of living and jobs. We have been asking it to control and bring down the cost of living crisis that the government's anti-private-sector, anti-energy, anti-resource-development command-and-control policies have created.
The member touches on a thing that I really find the most important about this debate. It is that the NDP-Liberal government owes these answers to Canadians about how it is going to achieve the targets it set on these timelines. So far, it is causing all economic pain and no environmental gain. That is why Conservatives and Canadians are asking whether it is worth the cost. That is the government's job to answer.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I am a fierce protector of is the livelihoods, the cost of living and the standard of living of the people I represent and every single vulnerable community and citizen across this country.
While I appreciated working with that hon. member on the natural resources committee in my first term, he should probably get into the coalition cabinet and ask them about why they have not done the interties and have set unrealistic targets that are impossible, about which they will answer no single concrete question regarding who is going to pay for them and how we are going to get there.
People may not want to take my word for it, which I understand because I am a politician. So that Canadians understand, this is not just about a war on oil and gas, which it absolutely is. How do we know it is about economic restructuring? We know that because the Prime Minister and the natural resources minister have said that.
I would note that there are only parliamentary secretaries here, so it seems like this is a real priority. Last week, in the House of Commons the minister talked on this issue and referred to economic restructuring. During COVID, the Prime Minister said it was an opportunity to reset and restructure the economy. That is what this is about.
225 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question because it allows me to put some reality and facts on the table. Again, I am not sure if the Bloc knows the facts either, but here they are.
I hate to be a homer all the time, but Alberta for decades has led this country in renewable and alternative energy development. We have the largest and oldest commercial wind farms in this country, to the point that they are already being decommissioned. Maybe people want to point out that it is still only 2% of our grid, which should be a lesson, but this is the thing: We are also the leader in Alberta on the development of alternative and renewable energy technologies and the fuels of the future right now.
The provincial government is setting certain conditions and giving certainty and clarity to private sector proponents and all Albertans to have confidence in the regulatory regime. We have always led the country on renewable and alternative energy because that is our energy companies' expertise. We do not have a history of putting that on governments, ratepayers and taxpayers. We do it through free enterprise policies. That is the opportunity that awaits all of Canada. What concerns me is that these guys do not seem to know that it is oil and gas companies doing all that work.
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question because it gives me the ability to address the reality of Bill C-49 rather than the Liberals' false claims.
Here is the truth about Bill C-49. It imports a number of clauses from Bill C-69 and includes a number of clauses from another bill, Bill C-55. The consequences of both of those bills embedded in Bill C-49 are exactly what has unfolded and what Conservatives warned about in previous debates. Bill C-49 would hold up, delay, road block and gatekeep alternative and renewable offshore development, just as it is also a simultaneous attack on petroleum offshore development.
I am not sure if Liberals do not read bills, do not know what they are talking about or are just reading what someone says, but these issues are grave. They are serious for the underpinning of our economy and our standard of living. We oppose Bill C-49 because it is an attack on energy to end petroleum offshore opportunities, and it would hold up, road block, delay and gatekeep renewable and alternative offshore energy development. Conservatives are going to accelerate approvals, make sure projects can get built, cut timelines and make both traditional and alternative energy sources available at affordable—
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, for all Canadians everywhere; for my bosses, the people of Lakeland; and on behalf of the official opposition, Conservatives oppose Bill C-50.
It is dressed up as something else, but it is really the culmination and symbol of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition's divisive, top-down, central planning, economy-restructuring and wealth-redistributing, anti-private sector, antidevelopment, anti-energy agenda, known previously and around the world as the so-called just transition.
The reality is anything but just. It really represents a transition to poverty and a diminishment of the standard of living and way of life most Canadians are able to enjoy. I will make that case today and expand on it later as MPs do our job and our due diligence on this bill, which is about so much more than it seems at first.
The NDP-Liberals say it is about job training and helping workers in one sector develop some new skills for jobs in a sector yet to get fully on its feet. Canadians should know that it embodies almost a decade of incremental, punitive policies, taxes, bans and penalties, and red tape to end energy development in Canada and to kill those and all related jobs.
It shows the core philosophical gap between Conservatives and, I think, most Canadians and all the other parties in this House. It puts top-down, command and control planning, and power in the hands of politicians and government to set and restructure the fundamentals of Canada's economy instead of job creators, entrepreneurs, inventors, dreamers and individual Canadian citizens and consumers, who built our country into the blessed placed that it is.
As a consequence, it would ultimately make life more expensive and more unstable for all Canadians, like nearly everything else the costly coalition has done during the last eight years.
The just transition is a dangerous, government-mandated and direct threat to hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs. It would displace hundreds of thousands of workers and risk the livelihoods of Canadians across all provinces and territories in all sectors.
Members should mark Conservatives' words: It would negatively impact the whole Canadian economy while disproportionately harming certain people and provinces, such as B.C., the Prairies and Atlantic Canada, and regions. There is nothing just about it, and the government knows it. After months of naming it preparing it, at the very last minute, the government changed the wording from “just transition” to the so-called sustainable jobs plan, because it sounds better. Canadians were worried about the just transition when they found out what it meant, so the NDP-Liberals switched it out, for their own PR and political purposes; their early framework document from last summer even admits this.
However, it is the same old plan, anchored on the NDP-Liberal agenda to end Canada's energy sector and to harm all the other spinoff jobs and sectors in all provinces that depend on it. The damage to Canada cannot be overstated. Whether the blind and divisive ideology of the other parties would allow them to admit this reality or not, let us get real about the stakes of this debate.
Despite eight years of layers of anti-energy policies, laws, bans, vetoes, caps, standards, penalties, taxes and red tape that have driven billions of dollars and the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of our country, the fact remains today that oil and gas is literally the top private sector investor in Canada's economy, and energy is still Canada's largest export.
It is the leading contributor to tax revenues at every level of government, with more than $48 billion last year alone. Almost a decade into the coalition's anti-energy agenda, it still directly employs almost 200,000 people, with average wages that are more than double the national average.
The truth is that every single provincial and territorial budget depends on revenues from oil and gas. Even in provinces where the elected people pretend it does not pay for the programs and services their citizens expect and count on, it does, both directly and when the revenue from the incomes of energy workers are shared across the country in transfers.
On top of that, oil and gas companies in Canada are the top private sector investors in clean technology, covering 75% of private sector investment in Canada in clean tech. They have been the private sector pioneers of alternative and renewable energy innovation for decades, because energy transformation is their expertise.
I am appalled that I even have to point out these facts in the hope that we can have some semblance of a realistic debate here, since the anti-energy coalition has spent so much time dismissing, distorting and denying it. At this point, I do not even know whether all these legislators here actually do not know the facts, which is obviously alarming in itself, or whether they are just wilfully ignorant and deliberately evasive in order to impose their own agenda.
However, the magnitude and gravity of what the end days of this approach would look like for Canadians means I must speak the truth. Conservatives will keep doing so to do our duty in the best public interest of all Canadians, which is our priority.
The responsible development of Canada's natural resources has been the main driver in closing the gap between the wealthy and poor, and it is disproportionately responsible for the relatively high standard of living that most Canadians have enjoyed compared with other countries around the world. Energy development here constantly innovates and transforms. Engineers, inventors and risk-takers have built a globally renowned means to displace higher-polluting alternatives, accelerate technology to improve environmental stewardship, and help reduce emissions globally. It is also the most environmentally and socially responsible means to do so. It is often the only source of job and economic opportunities in rural and remote communities, especially indigenous communities, which make up more than double the workforce percentage in oil and gas of indigenous people in other sectors compared with the national average.
As always, vulnerable people, people in rural and remote communities and people the Liberals say they care about, especially on the Prairies and in Atlantic Canada, are the people whom Bill C-50 would disproportionately hurt the most. The truth is, though, that this whole agenda would negatively impact all Canadians and all major sectors. It would cascade through the economy, which is already happening in real time. This top-down, central planning attempt to restructure the economy would hurt manufacturers in metals, rubber, plastics and chemicals; technicians in the oil and gas sector; workers and truck drivers in the transportation sector bringing food to grocery stores; servers and cooks in food services; farms and ranchers and agribusiness; and hotels, convenience stores and all individual Canadians, as the cost of living goes higher and higher as a result of the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-private sector policies. Canadians are already bearing all these costs at just the beginning of these anti-energy laws, taxes and red tape; it will get worse.
The carbon tax, of course, has hiked the cost of everything, with no overall reductions in emissions or improved environmental performance to show for it. It is clearly not worth the cost, because almost a decade in, it is not doing what the NDP-Liberals claim; it is fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis their government has caused. Basics, and not luxuries, such as groceries, gas and home heating, are all more expensive, with no end in sight. A stick of butter is almost seven bucks where I live. Gas has been hovering around two bucks a litre in Alberta, Ontario and Atlantic Canada; it is more than that in parts of B.C.
Provinces have been working to try to lower fuel costs. Alberta suspended its gas tax, only to have the NDP-Liberals drive the costs right back up by bringing in their second carbon tax, from which, let us be clear, no Canadian in any province is exempt. Other provinces, such as those in Atlantic Canada, plead with the federal NDP-Liberals to pause the carbon taxes because their residents have to choose between eating and heating and cannot make ends meet.
The NDP-Liberals wax eloquent about caring, but they make light of the struggles Canadians face. They criticize Conservatives for being the only party actually fighting to lower costs and prices for everyone. They call names, impugn motives, distract and divide, and they keep right on rolling their agenda over everyone in the way. Layers of NDP-Liberal anti-energy policies, such as the no more pipelines bill, shipping bans, drilling bans, vetoes of approved energy infrastructure and gatekeeping red tape, designed to get to no and not to yes, have already destroyed over 300,000 jobs. Massive long-term promising oil and gas and pipeline investments, LNG terminals and export facilities, and mining operations have all been cancelled or delayed or cannot even get started because of the uncertainty of the NDP-Liberal agenda.
What really concerns me is all the costly coalition's efforts, or its ignorance, about the direct link between energy development and Canadians' everyday real lives. Right now, if Canada keeps going in the NDP-Liberal government's direction, our country is on track to be one of the worst performers in standard-of-living increases in the world over the next 40 years. There would be real costs, as there already are.
Based on the NDP-Liberals' catastrophically failed experiment with the coal transition, which left workers and whole communities behind, this next phase of the global just transition agenda will cost Canada almost $40 billion each year it is implemented. That does not even include the loss in tax revenue and royalties from oil and gas. However, members should not take my word for it. The government's own internal brief says its just transition plan will kill 170,000 direct jobs, displace up to 450,000 direct and indirect jobs, and cause large-scale disruptions to manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, energy and construction, impacting a staggering 2.7 million Canadian livelihoods. That is why Conservatives stand alone, opposed to this agenda. It is absolutely not worth the cost.
I am going to touch on disproportionate impacts. Despite all the empty rhetoric, which individual Canadians are going to be hurt directly and the most?
The truth is this: Visible minority Canadians and indigenous Canadians, who are more highly represented in the energy sector, are expected to face higher job disruptions and will have more trouble finding new opportunities as a result of this truly unjust plan. That is gross. What is really gross is that the government knows it.
Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, said, “There is nothing fair or equitable about [it]”. In committee, he put a fine point on how much worse the reality of this agenda would be for indigenous communities. He said there are “high costs” to this poor plan and the “crisis we now face in first nations.” He also said:
Many of our communities rely on diesel generation. People have to drive for hours to get to doctors appointments or a grocery store. A lot of people aren't on the grid, and even those who are don't have the electricity capacity to add charging stations in garages they don't have. You won't find any electric cars on the [reserve].
That is the case for lots of Canadians all across the country. The reality is that oil and gas are still more readily available for remote communities. The projects last longer and have better wages, job security, benefits and opportunities than other sectors provide. That is just the truth.
The NDP-Liberals' plan to phase out oil and gas is bad for Canada, but it has international implications, too. The ongoing attack on Ukraine should make it clear to the Liberals and the NDP that where the world gets its energy from really matters and underscores the importance of energy security. The NDP-Liberal government should actually learn lessons from other countries instead of plunging Canada down the same destructive path.
Germany, for example, ignored energy security to try to phase out its own energy sector and relied on dictatorships, such as Russia, to supply its citizens' needs, until Russia turned off the taps and Germany was forced to bring their coal power back online. After cancelling the KXL pipeline, President Joe Biden had to plead with OPEC dictators to increase oil exports. That failed, so he had to empty the U.S.'s strategic petroleum reserve and end sanctions in Venezuela, even though he was also the VP when the U.S. ramped up shale gas and oil exports outside of North America, and in the same year, the U.S. imported more of that very same oil from Canada than ever before in its history.
Apparently, hypocrisy abounds for the sake of domestic politics there, just like here. Of course, now the U.S. has upped the competitive ante on Canada even more while the NDP-Liberals leave us vulnerable and hold us back, and the U.S. has not actually slowed down its traditional energy development or exports either; they are ramping up. Canada can and should be an energy superpower, and Conservatives believe we still can be, with a change of government. However, it is not for the title; instead, it is to bring home energy self-sufficiency and security for our country, for the standard of living of our citizens first, and then to support free and democratic allies and developing nations around the world.
It is wild that even now, the NDP-Liberals will not reverse their destructive plan, despite geopolitical realities and the necessity of stable, reliable, accessible, predictable and affordable energy of all kinds for Canada's communities, economy and sovereignty. That is more obvious and necessary than ever.
Canada should accelerate energy projects and infrastructure for energy alignment with North America and allies around the world. Canada should maintain and expand its place at the top of energy-producing nations and supply growing global energy demand while alternative energy and other fuels of the future are in development, but not yet abundant or reliable enough for all domestic or global needs. Canada can aim to meet net-zero targets while continuing to reap the benefits of a sector that is leading the entire world in innovation and clean technology.
That is what an actual evidence-based policy would do. In fact, that is the only feasible way to meet Canadian energy needs, grow Canada's economy and achieve environmental goals until other alternatives, which are currently in development, become real, viable options for all Canadians. However, the NDP-Liberals are rushing ahead anyway, ignoring science, economics and expert testimony for their own ideology.
When evidence and experts show their plans' massive flaws, they obfuscate through rebranding campaigns and buzzwords, while ignoring or attacking any critics. For example, when the government held two consultation phases on it, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nunavut were left out. The natural resources committee, which I am on, was in the middle of a study about the just transition, hearing testimony, when the NDP-Liberals brought in the bill before the work was even finished. The final report was selective to suit their agenda.
As they do this, it attacks Canada's energy sector, fails to recognize Canada's world-class environmental standards and encourages an accelerated transition away from the livelihoods and businesses on which millions of Canadians depend. Instead of examining and making recommendations on practical and feasible ways and timelines for increased technological development and grid decarbonization without risking Canada's economy and standard of living, the report was twisted to prop up the bill after the fact and totally excluded the large group of witnesses who highlighted the gaps, contradictions and realities of this agenda.
It is worth noting that, during the entire 64-witness, 23-brief, year-plus-long study, only one non-government witness ever called it “sustainable jobs”. Therefore, it is almost insultingly obvious that it is a cynical last-minute attempt to obscure the real aims and the real consequences.
The Liberals already failed their just transition attempt for 3,400 coal workers in 14 communities, and some say past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour. Last year, the environment commissioner said that plan failed by every measure and left those workers and all those communities behind. Now the Liberals claim they can do this for 2.7 million workers across every sector of the economy. We call Canadians skeptical, and rightly so. Bill C-50 is more of the same. It would be that kind of failure, and that is why Conservatives oppose it.
However, the key question for Canadians is this: What is the experience of other countries that are 30 to 40 years down the road of the policy agenda imposed by the NDP-Liberals on Canada? Well, the answer is alarming, and it should cause a serious pause to elected representatives here at home in Canada.
In European countries, after implementing various just transition policies in the late 2010s, electricity bills doubled from 2021 to 2022, but let us talk about some specifics. German citizens faced a 200% increase. Scandinavians saw a 470% increase in power bills. What does that even mean? That was, of course, before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In the U.K., literally three days ago, governments are stopping big elements of their anti-energy policies, including their ban on internal combustion engines and the transition away from natural gas heating. They are removing their tax on jet fuel and opposing calls to ban new oil and gas production in the North Sea. The U.K. is also, of course, extending coal plant life cycles through next year. This will continue, because this approach does not work.
In Australia, the government scrapped the carbon tax after it made everything more expensive and harmed resource development, a pillar of their middle economy, just like Canada, although it has many advantages over us. The carbon tax caused a spiral of damage across the board, and instead, Australia now uses incentives to spur clean investment and clean energy development like we Conservatives proposed.
France axed its carbon tax more than five years ago in the midst of soaring prices, an escalating cost of living crisis and riots in the streets. In Sweden, the government has slashed taxes on gasoline, just like what Conservatives have been calling for here at home, and actually announced a surprising pause of all its policy efforts toward net zero this past summer instead of tripling taxes and plunging ahead down this perilous path. Germans, of course, have gone on to bring back online 15 coal-fired plants with extended life cycles to combat rising power costs, which also contracted the country's GDP, and now coal accounts for one-third of German energy generation for five million homes.
This is just a few of the many countries that are further ahead of Canada down this road and are backing up because of the severity of the consequences for their citizens: an escalating cost of living crisis, skyrocketing power prices, falling GDP and standards of living, crashing power grids and unstable fuel sources, risks to sovereignty and vulnerability to hostile powers.
All of that is becoming very familiar to Canadians after eight years of the Prime Minister, but it is not a coincidence. Instead it is a consequence, and it is all connected. Conservatives plead for the NDP-Liberals to get this reality before it is too late, and we will keep fighting to protect and maintain Canadians' livelihoods, opportunities and standard of living, while maintaining the best and ever-improving environmental performance in the world that we know Canadians expect.
The Liberal-NDP's just transition must be considered in the context of all these cost-hiking measures that have been imposed on Canadians. They will increase the cost of living; kill Canadian jobs and communities; risk economic activity, jobs and tax revenue at all levels of government from Canada's largest sector; and jeopardize the reliable, affordable and abundant energy that Canadians need every day. Instead of examining practical ways and timelines to get grid decarbonization without risking the economy and the livelihoods of millions Canadians, the just transition attacks Canadian oil and gas workers and all the other jobs and businesses that depend on it.
Environmental stewardship must be addressed with realistic, concrete and effective measures. Conservatives want realistic transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; and the evolution of energy sources to be led and paid for by the private sector, not forced by a government's command and control agenda. Conservatives believe Canada must develop our traditional alternative energy sources and support the development of industries like hydrogen, biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal and other innovations. We will make both traditional and alternative energy affordable and accessible, accelerate approvals on infrastructure and export projects, and green-light green projects. We are the only party—
3560 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Regina—Lewvan and colleagues right across Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, I will respond to the private member's bill, Bill C-235, from the member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I first wanted to say that I really respect the member. I enjoy working opposite to and sometimes constructively with him. Most of all, I am sincerely heartened to see him here and in good health.
My own background is, of course, a rural prairie one. I grew up near a village of about 200 people. My husband and I live and raise horses where he grew up a mile west of a town of fewer than 1,500 people, so no matter where I go or what I do, I am always a rural Alberta farm girl at heart.
As an MP, I have fought non-stop for farmers, for farm families, for oil and gas workers, for responsible resource development, for rural and indigenous communities and against burdensome government red tape, taxes and barriers to rural life. I am grateful to our interim leader for her friendship, counsel and confidence and for the opportunity to focus on rural economic development and rural broadband in the months ahead.
Right off the top, let me share the general view of prairie residents, especially rural people and those in Lakeland. The federal government in Ottawa is very far away, very expensive and very slow to respond. It does not get the realities or the priorities of prairie life, and the very best way the federal government can help the Prairies to develop and diversify their economies, to create jobs and to reduce emissions is to get out of the way. We are already doing it.
I know this member is sincere in his intentions to increase collaboration between all levels of government and indigenous communities, but it will instead add the very layer of bureaucracy that often stifles economic development initiatives or private sector projects, partnerships and investments in the first place.
A framework to enhance consultation sounds commendable. The reality will be a complex bureaucratic process spanned across three provinces and at least five federal departments, dragged out over a year and a half, just to create a plan that is likely to mostly feature predetermined federal Liberal government ideology and goals. While effective and timely collaboration does not always happen in practice, this attempt to create yet another layer of red tape is, and ought to be, unnecessary. There is nothing stopping federal and provincial ministers, existing departments and public servants from working together on any and every policy area that overlaps and impacts each other already. The fact that an MP thinks it is necessary to legislate such practice is actually an indictment on the status quo approach of current governments and politicians, and maybe even senior levels of departments and regulatory bodies.
I think most Canadians expect that this sort of work is already happening regularly and that it should not take a new law and a long drawn-out process to get it done. As someone who has worked in a provincial public service primarily focused on energy, environment and economic development policies and issues, I can say first-hand that it is eminently possible and reasonable for public servants to work in cross-departmental and cross-provincial capacities with the federal government, along with a variety of private sector and indigenous partners, and to achieve real outcomes.
A federally imposed, top-down, drawn-out legislated bureaucratic process is not necessary and is most likely to be long on meetings, procedures and reports, but short on deliverables, outcomes and actual economic or environmental results. Instead of accepting that yet another legislative- and administrative-heavy framework is what is required, it seems to me the ministers, departments and each level of government should both demand and do better. I believe that timely accountability is what most Canadians expect too.
On top of that, frankly, I think what the member is trying to remedy in his bill is already happening in the provinces to which it applies. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Most notably in the Prairies and across Canada, provinces have created and already implemented working plans to reduce emissions and enhance environmental protection. These are both programs that enable more R and D and innovation to advance energy technologies and energy efficiency through seed funding or private-public partnerships, and specific programs designed to increase indigenous participation in economic opportunities, both as partners and as owners, by increasing the capacity for indigenous and Métis communities to participate in regulatory processes, and to advance economic reconciliation by enabling indigenous people to secure more significant, long-term economic opportunities to build legacies of prosperity and self-sufficiency for future generations through increased access to capital. The duty to consult on major federal resource projects or related infrastructure is of course an explicit federal responsibility, and it should focus on getting that right.
Therefore, it seems to me that an obvious unintended consequence of this bill is that it could actually undermine the extensive work already being done across the country, and particularly in the Prairies already leading the way, by municipal and provincial governments, indigenous communities, utilities and the private sector. Instead of this “Ottawa knows best” approach to formalize oversight across three provinces and to federally wag the dog on their respective approaches to environmental stewardship, the federal government would do well to identify all the ways in which federal programs, rules and taxes overlap, duplicate, contradict and add costs and administrative burdens to entrepreneurs, resource developers and farmers.
The federal government would do better to listen to private sector proponents and indigenous communities, which say the regulatory burden the Liberals have created in Canada is politicized, onerous, punitive and driving away billions of dollars in projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the very sectors this bill focuses on, because it is so disproportionate from competitor jurisdictions and economies that nothing can get built here. The federal government would do better to listen to innovators and fix the major problem in Canada that they call the valley of death, where years of risk-taking, innovation, collaboration, creativity, inventiveness, research and development, and money go to die before ever making it to real commercialized, usable, feasible technology in Canada, making innovators go elsewhere. The federal government must maintain high standards in its key areas of responsibility, obviously, but otherwise should get itself out of the way of local and provincial governments that know their jurisdictions best and out of the way of private sector proponents, entrepreneurs and innovators, who know their sectors best.
Let us face reality. It is safe to say that the majority of people in the prairie provinces, where the major economic drivers are agriculture, mining and gas and oil extraction, and which are home to 62% of employment in Canada's egg activities and food processing and 19% of Canada's resource-based employment, are rightly skeptical and suspicious about the current federal government's intentions and actions. The Liberals' high-taxing, anti-energy, anti-resource development, anti-private sector legislative and regulatory approach has killed pipelines, driven away billions of dollars' worth of business and indigenous-partnered projects in oil, mining, natural gas and LNG development, and initiatives for more Canadian resource exports. Their approach has stuck 20 billion dollars' worth of resource and critical infrastructure proposals on idle in their cumbersome and prohibitive-by-design regulatory framework. The point really should be efficient, transparent, fair, objective and evidence-based due diligence in consultation, while maintaining Canada's world-class standards, not checking off boxes with ever-changing rules over the years and then not being certain a project can go ahead if it does get the green light. All of that has really done more to stifle innovation, R and D, technology advances and economic development and diversification in the Prairies than anything else.
This, of course, is at the heart of the matter. It is the fundamental difference in the world views and the approaches between the Liberals and the Conservatives and perhaps, really, between Ottawa and the Prairies.
The most significant private sector investors in clean tech; in emissions reduction; in new, renewable and alternative energy technologies; in solar, wind and green hydrogen projects; and in others areas are existing oil and gas, oil sands and pipeline companies. All kinds of government bodies at all levels, and utility companies, are currently shovelling millions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars into pilots for what they call the energy transition. However, in real terms with real outcomes, it is actually the private sector energy and resource companies that have long been leading efforts on emissions reduction, technological adaptation and mitigation, energy efficiency, and environmental stewardship and remediation, without risking billions in tax dollars.
It is also true that initial academic and government partnerships with seed funding and favourable regulatory approaches were important to starting major developments that benefit all of Canada and spinoff employment in multiple other sectors like the oil sands. This is 100% true in agricultural industries and among egg producers too, so it is strange that this bill does not actually include egg production at all. I notice this is a PMB seven years in, so one wonders how much of a priority it is to the government.
The fact that the heavy lifting and real leadership in emissions reduction and green technology advancements come from the private sector should not be a surprise to anyone. However, the federal government does often seem to be unaware. It stifles the very work and outcomes it says it wants to achieve, in favour of top-down, high-cost, complicated, low-results big government.
People in the Prairies, and especially in Lakeland, are not inclined to welcome the “I'm from the government and I'm here to help” mentality, and for many, many good reasons, so notwithstanding this respected member's goodwill and positive aspirations, the Conservatives will oppose Bill C-235.
1692 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
