Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-05-10 15:50 [p.6969]

Madam Speaker, very quickly I would add that we did canvass the issue in an emergency debate. It is a legitimate concern of the State of Michigan to protect the waters of the Great Lakes, but we all agree a solution must be found. This is an existing route and it should be maintained by one means or another.

I would say this very quickly to the hon. member. He mentioned in debate the other night that losing the energy chapter of NAFTA in the new CUSMA somehow hurt Canada’s energy security. I actually believe it is the opposite since that section only served to ensure that whatever quantity of fossil fuels or any product Canada was exporting to the U.S. would have to be maintained in perpetuity for those energy products. For instance, even if we were running out of our supplies of natural gas we would be required to continue to sell whatever share the U.S. got at its highest level. Would he not agree this is an improvement to have autonomy?

Greg McLean (Calgary Centre)
2021-05-10 15:51 [p.6969]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. The actual terms of the energy agreement in the former NAFTA was a proportional sharing agreement. It was not an absolute sharing agreement to the highest levels that we provide to the U.S.; it was a proportional sharing agreement so that if in some emergency or international incident we had to cut back one-quarter to the U.S. we would be incumbent to cut back one-quarter of our own supplies, as would the U.S. if we think about the way this product goes across the borders in both its raw and finished states. It is called a treaty for a reason, so that we can get some solidity on our energy security as an economy going forward.

The post Canada improved its energy autonomy with CUSMA appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Now that the Senate of Canada, the corporate lobby in the Council of Chief Executives, and the premiers are all willing to talk about the need for a national strategic energy vision, perhaps there is some hope that we can, at long last, have a plan. For years, Canada has been the only country in the OECD with no energy strategy. That failing has meant that, de facto, our energy strategy was whatever the oil patch wantedor more precisely what foreign owned energy multinationals decreed.

No wonder we still import foreign oil at world prices to half the country while shipping out Canadian oil at lower prices to the U.S. market. No wonder we have no climate plan, subsidize oil and gas, and have no carbon pricing (other than due to provincial action in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec).

Nationally, despite the Prime Minister’s crowing about Canada being an “energy superpower,” we are establishing ourselves as a compliant resource colony for the United States and China.

Now that we are talking about having a national energy plan, what are those core principles that could form the beginning of a national consensus?

Let’s start with energy sovereignty. We should ensure that we control our own resources. Foreign state-owned corporate control over Canadian energy resources should be scrupulously vetted for national security and sovereignty risk. Such scrutiny is particularly important when the state-owned enterprises are attached to undemocratic regimes. China’s brand of Capitalistic Communism, with human rights repression and downward pressure on environmental regulations, requires particular review.

When we look at our energy future, a key goal should be to structure planning around demand-side management. We need to develop our energy planning with the goal of doing more with less. Canada’s built infrastructure, whether residential, business or institutional, is woefully wasteful and in need of retrofits. We are literally heating and cooling the outdoors. And energy policy should be about more than drilling and scraping out new supply. We need a strategy for wise use of resources.

Next, can we all agree that energy security makes sense? Should we not ensure that Canada has adequate energy resources for our own use before shipping exports overseas? The dependency of Eastern Canada on oil imports from Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan makes no sense. Nova Scotia imports coal from Venezuela for its dirty electrical grid. To build energy self-sufficiency, we need to diversify and build capacity in renewable energy for the long-term.

Another principle that would take us out of the resource colony trap will be to ensure that we build “value-added” into our energy exports. Canadian crude should be processed and refined in Canada, at least in sufficient amounts for domestic markets, but for export as well. We have been allowing promising energy developments in renewable energy to be commercialized in other countries. We have export opportunities in value added in petroleum products and also in renewable energy that we are abandoning.

Another key element for a viable energy future is found in diversifying our energy portfolio. Canada has huge potential in renewable energy – wind, solar (both passive and photovoltaic), geothermal, district energy, small scale hydro, tidal and, where sustainable, biomass. So far, our energy conversation seems limited to fossil fuels.

A national energy plan must be designed to meet climate objectives. Any viable energy strategy must start by eliminating all subsidies to fossil fuels and placing a price on carbon. An energy strategy must set out a reasonable plan for capping and reducing greenhouse gases throughout the Canadian economy.

All of this is possible. The largest missing ingredient at the moment is federal leadership. Thus far, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has displayed no enthusiasm for any energy plan other than more than tripling oil sands production to six million barrels of oil a day. While B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Alberta Premier Alison Redford clash over Enbridge’s proposed risky pipeline and supertanker scheme to Kitimat, Harper is firmly on the side of one governmentthe one in Beijing.

If we are to have a national energy strategy, it has to start with an effort to build consensus. Ideally, it will provide a vision that advances the needs and aspirations of all parts of Canada. An energy plan should have at its core that it meets the needs of all of Canada while building our common wealth. That might just get everyone around the table.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.
Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post National energy strategy possible, federal leadership missing appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On paper this looks like we should have energy security, but the oil is not distributed evenly.  Oil from Hibernia on the East Coast is exported, as is Athabasca bitumen crude.  Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces rely on oil from Angola, Nigeria, Venezuela, Norway, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia.  In fact, 100% of the oil used in Quebec and the four Atlantic Provinces is imported.

In hearings before the House Natural Resources Committee, I heard executives from the oil industry say that if there was a disruption of supply to get oil to Eastern Canada, they could send tankers down through the Panama Canal to get to Eastern Canada. The U.S. also has a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure security of supply.  Does anyone find it odd that Canada does not?  I think we should have a plan to ensure energy security for Canada.  To do so, we would need to reverse some existing pipeline flows and invest in upgrading some of the existing pipeline infrastructure.

The post Is Canada an Energy Superpower? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“This list of reasons to reject this pipeline is long and wide ranging,”said Green Leader Elizabeth May.  “Climate change, habitat destruction, potential for contamination of lands and water, the list goes on.  But there are also economic reasons that the pipeline should not go ahead, particularly the potential for jobs if we keep and refine the existing bitumen in Canada.  It is critical to freeze any new growth of the oil sands to prevent hyperinflation and instead promote value added processing.”

“While we transition to secure, renewable energy and away from a fossil fuel-based economy, we must be smart with the oil that we do have and ensure we maintain control over Canada’s energy supply.  Shipping our bitumen to the US is not part of that strategy,” said May.

The post Greens support public action to oppose the Keystone pipeline appeared first on Elizabeth May.