Bill 24, Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes Amendment Act, 2010
November 22, 2010
Mrs. Forsyth: Mr. Chair, thank you. I’m pleased to rise and speak on Bill 24. I’m hearing from Albertans who are concerned about property rights in this province, whether it’s Bill 19, 36, 50, or those on the Order Paper today; that’s 26, 29, and this one, Bill 24, the Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes government keeps trying to make laws that enable it to act more Amendment Act, 2010. The efficiently but which trample the rights of Albertans. People are getting tired of the government disregarding rights and seeing rights as a nuisance, not as something to respect.
This bill is probably the most extreme example, really. While pore space isn’t a resource most individuals have much use for, obviously there is an important use for it if we are going to go ahead with carbon capture and storage. The government wants to begin storing things in these spaces and doesn’t want to go through the hassle of getting permission or using only Crown land, so government takes the pretty audacious step of declaring that it owns all pore spaces. It’s that simple. Every one in the province: it all belongs to the minister of the Crown, and as the owner he can pump whatever he wants to into it whenever he wants to, and you have to make way.
The minister says that the ownership wasn’t clear and insists that it’s not confiscating anything. This isn’t a matter of interpretation, Mr. Minister, it’s wrong because by common law, unless the laws say otherwise, the landowner owns everything down to the centre of the Earth. That means if the law does not say that the government owns spaces under your land, which it doesn’t, it belongs to the landowner. Common law makes interpretations like this all the time to apply itself to things the law did not previously make clear.
Now, of course, in Canada our property rights are not as strong as they could be, so the government can change the laws pretty easily like they are here, when there is a clear public purpose. But they shouldn’t pretend that they are just clarifying when they are in fact claiming something that wasn’t theirs before. Instead, they should come clean and say: “Look. We need to get at the best pore spaces in the province to store carbon dioxide. Because of these difficulties that will arise if we need to get permission from every single landowner near the spaces and because we are confident that the inconvenience and long-term dangers are small, we are just going to claim it. We don’t like doing this, but here’s our rationale.”
If they respected Albertans, Mr. Chairman, they would go on to say: here’s the benefit to Albertans, so here is why we’re not going to compensate those who own the land even though they have a reasonable claim to the spaces to begin with. People might be able to understand and respect this, but instead this government just claims it and pretends there is no possible dispute. If they really respected property rights, they would say: here’s a small amount of compensation we will offer for the use of pore spaces to those owning the land around it. Many people in rural areas are suffering,
Mr. Chair, and this would be a way of helping them instead of snubbing them. Given the $2 billion amount we’ve dedicated to this project, this would surely be a drop in the bucket. We might even find that people in certain areas would be willing to invite companies to use the spaces under their land. Instead, this government takes another step down its path of trampling property rights without any consultation and without any public justification.
Maybe that’s because they know there’s a dispute about the reason that they are doing this, Mr. Chair.
In addition to concerns about property rights I’ve been hearing concerns from many Albertans, especially in Calgary-Fish Creek, about whether this carbon capture plan really makes sense. They’re just not sure about it, Mr. Chair. They know we need to have a strong environmental record, but they think clean air and water and beautiful parks for recreation are priorities. I have a beautiful park in my riding, and it sits on the Bow. We want a clean, beautiful park where we can breathe the air and a clear Bow River running along it.
If companies were dirtying our air, water, or land, you can bet we wouldn’t stand for it, but if you tell us they all need to trap their carbon dioxide the same way we exhale as we walk through parks, we’re going to have a lot of questions. People from Calgary-Fish Creek support business, but they don’t want industries making our province dirty in any way. They just aren’t so sure that carbon dioxide is what’s important. They aren’t persuaded that this huge undertaking is going to make a meaningful contribution to the planet. They worry that it’s a huge expense, and the idea of a tanker truck driving around the province to put pure carbon dioxide in the ground raises a lot of questions.
I agree with these concerns, and I think there may be better ways to spend this money, whether it’s on transit, reducing traffic jams, or even the high-speed rail the hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake gets so excited about. Or maybe there should be a tax incentive to encourage all companies and individuals to invest in more efficient technologies so Alberta can have more output with less input.
I am opposed to this bill because I am very uncomfortable with it on the grounds of property rights and on the grounds of the questionable project it paves the way for. I agree with the hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore that we should have a world-class forum so that we can decide the best investments, regulations, or deregulations the Alberta government should be making to protect our environment and make the most of our resources at the same time.
Mr. Chair, I’m looking forward to the discussion. I know that we’re going to be bringing several amendments forward, and I imagine the opposition is, too. I’m looking for a good debate. I’m looking for the minister to stand up and respond on this piece of legislation and answer the questions that Albertans need to have answered.
Thank you.