So V ote

May/17/22 10:56:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, whom I quite like. Often the Conservatives are puppets of the oil and gas sector, but my colleague from Timmins-James Bay is often a puppet of the Liberal Party. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources received an assistant deputy minister of the environment. Unfortunately, he pretended to have technical problems to avoid answering our questions on the Bay du Nord development project. When I asked that the assistant deputy minister be invited back before the committee, my colleague from Timmins-James Bay was against the idea. He said he did not want assistant deputy minister to come back. As far as dental insurance is concerned, does my colleague not sometimes feel trapped in the Liberal Party's puppet games?

131 words

May/17/22 12:06:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the mischievous member for Mirabel. What to say about this motion? First, I will tell my NDP colleagues that the Bloc Québécois will support their motion, since putting an end to subsidies for fossil fuels is something we have long defended. When it comes to the issue of oil and gas in Canada, it seems to me that many stakeholders become irrational, so irrational that it feels like this has to do with culture or identity. I do not want to play the “us and them” game, but everyone is familiar with the two solitudes. Many Canadians identify with the gas and oil industry. I could compare that with guns, in the United States, which I see as a symbol of a certain right-wing identity. In Canada, oil is a symbol of a certain Canadian identity. Consider what happened in the last Parliament, and I will not hide the fact that I was blown away. A motion moved by the Conservatives stated that oil is irreplaceable and that we should set aside a day to celebrate it. The first time I sat in the House and heard some of my colleagues shouting “build a pipeline”, I was taken aback. As a Quebecker, I wondered whether I should be shouting “build hydro towers”. Really, I was not sure what to do. I will go further. On many of my Conservative colleagues’ phones and even on their pins, I see the famous slogan “I love oil and gas”. On my computer, I have a Quebec flag. I admit that I do not feel as invested in the gas and oil sector. More recently, in March if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Abbotsford said during an opposition day that we should cut gas taxes by 5%. I think that he must be biting his tongue today, since it really is not a good idea to cut taxes by 5% when oil companies are making record profits, as I will show later. However, I do not blame the Conservatives, because at least they are doing it openly. When I hear a Conservative give a speech on the oil and gas sector, I know what to expect. It is a little more difficult with the Liberals, who keep promising an energy transition, who keep promising to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but then do the exact opposite. We only have to look at Bay du Nord. At the Montreal Climate Summit, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said, “I am an activist and an environmentalist. . . . I must represent all Canadians and I have to accept that I won't be able to win all my battles... I know you are disappointed with the Bay du Nord decision”. I wondered why he said that he represented all Canadians. Does that mean that all Canadians disagree that the oil and gas sector poses an environmental problem? From reading his quote, I get the impression he is making a decision that goes against his beliefs. I am not questioning the environment minister’s beliefs: he has shown that he has a strong environmental ethic. However, in his opinion, what makes sense for Canadians is to accept oil and gas projects. This is what makes me say that talking about the oil and gas industry in Canada is something almost irrational that can paralyze our political process. We in the Bloc Québécois are somewhat less affected, I admit. Until very recently, we could count on the NDP. However, with the happy and consummated marriage between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the New Democrats will be obliged, and my friend Charlie will like what I say next, even if they condemn the $2.6 billion—

658 words

All Topics

May/17/22 12:12:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize: I should have said “my friend”, or simply “the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay”. We could count on the NDP on issues concerning the oil and gas sector. However, they will be obliged to support the budget, which earmarks $2.6 billion for carbon capture strategies. I will get back to that later. That prompted the mischievous member for Mirabel to say that the NDP is spending so much time at the Liberals' feet that they are going to get oral thrush, which he thinks explains the dental care plan. I would not go that far, not being as ungenerous as my colleague from Mirabel, of course. When I look at the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats, I see that, when it comes to the oil and gas sector, our political process is stalled. It is impossible to have a rational debate, as I have witnessed in the past three years. All the same, debates are necessary. To sum all this up in one short sentence, the oil and gas sector is a bottomless pit for public funds. Earlier, I spoke of the $2.6 billion in the budget for carbon capture and storage. A total of 400 academics signed a letter saying that this technology is not feasible. Several witnesses told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that, from a technical standpoint, it might work for a cement plant or heavy industrial processes, but not for the oil and gas sector. It is a mirage, yet the government will be investing $2.6 billion. To add insult to injury, people from the oil and gas sector told us that $2.6 billion might not even be enough, and that they would like to be reimbursed for 75% of the associated costs. They are trying to make us believe in low-carbon oil, which is not a real thing. Moreover, they want taxpayers to pay for this low-carbon oil. That is confusing to anyone who is the least bit rational. The result is that what we are seeing in Canada is the opposite of what we are seeing in every other country. Instead of a “polluter pays” policy, Canada has a “polluter gets paid” policy. I will conclude by saying that there are two carbon capture projects in Alberta, costing about $2.5 billion, 57% of which comes out of public funds. Canada supports fossil fuels 14 times more than all of the G20 countries. For every $14 billion invested in fossil fuels, Canada invests only $1 billion in clean energy. We know that EDC costs $14 billion a year. The proportion in all the G20 countries is a mere 2.5%. That is completely unacceptable. Now there is the Trans Mountain project, which was initially presented as an economic project. In my opinion, it is not an economic project; it is a projet meant to appease western Canada. It is completely irrational. The cost started at $12 billion, then ballooned to $21 billion, and now, with the government loan, it has gone up to $31 billion. As my colleagues know, in the 1990s, the automotive industry was given a $10‑billion loan that was later forgiven. That means that $31 billion in public funds is going into Trans Mountain. In the past few weeks and months, we have watched wealth being transferred from the middle class to the oil multi-billionaires. This is going to have consequences. Suncor reported net earnings of $2.95 billion, while Imperial Oil reaped $1.17 billion, its highest quarterly profit in 30 years. TC Energy made $1 billion in profit, and Chevron was able to quadruple its profits. This money comes from taxpayers who are paying too much for gas at the pump. The refining margin was 9.4¢ in 2008, but it is 48¢ in 2022. Our Conservative colleagues tell us that we need to reduce the carbon tax, and they often bring up random constituents, like Gilberte Larouche in the backwoods of Alberta, who is having trouble paying for groceries. However, Gilberte Larouche is also having trouble paying for gas, and I do not think that reducing the carbon tax will help her. I will try to summarize, because I do not have much time left. We need to move as quickly as possible to end the fossil fuel subsidies. What the government is proposing, namely identifying inefficient subsidies, will not work. We need to find a solution to reduce the obscene profits being made in the oil and gas sector.

785 words

All Topics

May/17/22 12:18:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's question, but I would like to come back to what he said by way of introduction. He said that he has never seen the Bloc side with the Conservatives more. What I have seen over the past few weeks is my colleague from Timmins—James Bay refusing to allow the deputy minister of the environment to come back to talk to the committee about Bay du Nord. I cannot understand that. How can someone who claims to support the energy transition not want to question a deputy minister on a decision as appalling as Bay du Nord? Sometimes there is a lot of bluster in the House. However, when it comes time to take action, many people back down. We are not backing down on our core values just because we agreed with the Conservatives two or three times.

147 words

May/17/22 12:20:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague from Winnipeg North believes himself when he speaks. I really wonder about that. With regard to investments in the energy transition, let us not forget the much-touted $17‑billion green recovery plan. The government is investing $17 billion for its entire green recovery plan, but it is investing $30 billion in a single oil project, Trans Mountain. Your green recovery plan includes the hydrogen strategy. You want to make hydrogen with the oil and gas industry, with strategies—

91 words

May/17/22 12:21:15 p.m.
Watch

I understand, Madam Speaker. The government's plan includes Canada's hydrogen strategy. The government plans to invest a ton of money to produce hydrogen from natural gas, which is what the oil and gas sector is calling for. The only natural resources industry that captures carbon naturally is the forestry industry. In my region, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, this industry contributes more to the government than the government invests in all of Quebec.

77 words

May/17/22 12:22:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what Oil Change International says is that, year after year, the government, through EDC, invests a minimum of $14 billion in the oil and gas sector. What is worse, the Canadian government is not prepared to define what it considers a subsidy, so we will never have a real sense of what is going on. Given the $14 billion a year invested through EDC and all of the money spent on the Trans Mountain pipeline, I think I would stop talking. I would almost be ashamed if I were from the west.

96 words

May/17/22 1:19:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I have some reservations. I do not think it is right to use science only when it serves one's purposes. A group of 400 academics wrote that carbon capture is not a good idea for the oil and gas sector. A number of experts told us in committee that carbon capture could meet the needs of cement factories or heavy industrial processes, but it is a pipe dream for the oil and gas sector. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with these 400 experts that carbon capture should apply only to very specific sectors but not the oil and gas sector.

114 words