SoVote

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/17/22 10:23:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the third petition highlights ongoing concerns about violence and conflict in the humanitarian crisis in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. Petitioners would like to see more government engagement and action in support of the people of Ethiopia in the context of the conflict and violence that have taken place.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/17/22 10:23:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition in support of Bill S-223, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for people to go abroad and receive an organ taken without consent. The bill that this petition is dealing with will be up for a vote in the House tomorrow.

55 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/22 10:23:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is not a reflection on the number of petitions the member is introducing but rather on the current petition that he is presenting, which is more of a political statement coming from the Conservative Party. I do believe that the member has the right, obviously, to read into the record some thoughts in a concise way on what the petitioners want, which is one thing, but to be taking a political, partisan position that the Conservative Party has is another.

83 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 10:23:45 a.m.
Watch

The Speaker is not aware of exactly what is in the petition; however, I do want to remind members that they are to summarize the petition exactly as to what the petition has said. If hon. members are actually adding their position or their political views, then that is different. I would suggest that hon. members take that into consideration. I will allow the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to finish.

73 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/17/22 10:24:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the point, and I think I was being faithful to the rules in that respect. I appreciate the interest of the parliamentary secretary on this important issue, or an issue that the petitioners think is important, I should say. The petitioners ask to “[p]rotect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another 'values test'” and to “[a]ffirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.” I commend all of these petitions to the consideration of the government and all hon. members.

114 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/17/22 10:25:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 448, 451, 452 and 454.

15 words

May/17/22 10:25:26 a.m.
Watch

Question No. 448—

Questioner: Anna Roberts

With regard to companies that went bankrupt after receiving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS): (a) how many companies that received CEWS have since gone bankrupt; (b) what is the total amount of CEWS funding received by the companies in (a); (c) how many of the companies in (a) owed back taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency when they were sent the CEWS payments; (d) what was the total amount of back taxes owed by such companies; (e) what are the names of the companies that owed back taxes; and (f) how much did each company in (e) owe when they were sent CEWS funding?

Question No. 451—

Questioner: Frank Caputo

With regard to the backlog of disability benefit claims at Veterans Affairs Canada: (a) what is the number of first applications where veterans are also waiting for a positive decision that will allow them access to delivery of health care treatment, as of March 29, 2022; and (b) where did the 16-week service standard related to the process for receiving disability benefits come from?

Question No. 452—

Questioner: Frank Caputo

With regard to the backlog of applications at Veterans Affairs Canada: what are the average and median wait times of (i) first applications, (ii) second applications, (iii) "red-zoned" applications?

Question No. 454—

Questioner: Gérard Deltell

With regard to historical data sets available or previously available from Statistics Canada: what are the details of all data sets which have been dismantled, removed or have become unavailable for Canadians to access since January 1, 2016, including, for each, (i) the date the data set was dismantled, removed or became unavailable, (ii) what happened to the data set, (iii) the summary of the contents, including the topics contained in the data, (iv) the reason the data set was removed, (v) who authorized changing the availability of the data set, (vi) whether or not there still is a way for the public to access the data, and, if so, how?

1087 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 10:25:26 a.m.
Watch

Is it the pleasure of the House that the foregoing questions be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately? Some hon. members: Agreed.

26 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/17/22 10:25:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 447, 449, 450, 453 and 455 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

28 words

May/17/22 10:25:43 a.m.
Watch

Question No. 447—

Questioner: Frank Caputo

With regard to the used F-18 fighter jets the government purchased from Australia: (a) what have been the total costs related to aircraft maintenance since the jets were acquired, broken down by (i) year, (ii) type of expense; (b) what are the projected costs to maintain the aircraft, broken down by fiscal year from present until 2032-33; (c) how much has been spent on improvements, either directly for or related to the jets, including (i) radar improvements, (ii) communications gear, (iii) equipment, (iv) other expenditures, broken down by fiscal year since the jets were acquired; and (d) what are the projected costs of improvements, either directly for or related to the jets, broken down by fiscal year and type of improvement, from the present fiscal year until 2032-33?

Question No. 449—

Questioner: Anna Roberts

With regard to the $5,000 First-Time Home Buyer's tax credit, broken down by fiscal year since 2018-19: (a) what is the total number of individuals who claimed the credit; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory?

Question No. 450—

Questioner: Marty Morantz

With regard to the government's $173 million agreement with Medicago to develop a COVID-19 vaccine and the decision of the World Health Organization (WHO) not to accept the vaccine for emergency use: (a) was the government aware that Medicago being partially owned by a tobacco company would cause a problem related to WHO authorization prior to the agreement being signed, and, if so, why did the government still proceed with the agreement; (b) on what date did the government first become aware that Philip Morris' ownership stake in Medicago would become an issue with the WHO; (c) has any minister made a formal request or representation to the WHO related to the Covifenz vaccine issue, and, if so, what are the details, including, for each instance, the (i) date, (ii) name of the minister, (iii) summary of how requests or representations were made, (iv) title of the WHO official receiving requests or representations; (d) what is the breakdown by country of how the 20 million Covifenz vaccine doses under contract by the government are to be distributed; (e) how many of the doses in (d) have actually been distributed to date; (f) how many Covifenz doses had the government originally planned to be part of Canada's international COVAX commitment; and (g) has the government replaced the committed doses in (f) with another COVID-19 vaccine, and, if so, which one?

Question No. 453—

Questioner: Gérard Deltell

With regard to Statistics Canada (StatCan) and the note at the bottom of its Consumer Price Index (CPI) report released in March 2022 mentioning changes to the way in which the average prices of 52 products sold in Canadian grocery stores are tracked and reported: (a) what specific changes is StatCan making; (b) on what dates are these changes being made; (c) which specific products are being removed from the list and which ones are being added; (d) will the historical reports still be available in a manner where the average prices can be compared to current prices, and, if not, why not; (e) what specific measures, if any, are being taken to ensure that Canadians can still compare the current CPI prices to those from prior years; (f) were these changes authorized or signed off by a minister or anyone in any government department, and, if so, what are the details, including, (i) the dates, (ii) who authorized or signed off on the changes; and (g) what measures will be in place to ensure that Canadians can compare the new CPI average prices with those prior to the current period of high inflation, rather than the current, already inflated prices?

Question No. 455—

Questioner: Kelly McCauley

With regard to the public service pension plan: (a) what is the total value of the payments made to deceased pensioners, broken down by year since 2016; (b) of the payments in (a), what is the value of the amounts recovered to date from the estates of the deceased; (c) what is the percentage and value of the amounts not yet recovered in (a) which are expected to be (i) recovered, (ii) written-off; and (d) what are the details of the government's process for recovering pension plan payments made to deceased individuals?

714 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/22 10:25:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

12 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 10:25:47 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/17/22 10:27:13 a.m.
Watch

moved: That, given that, (i) Canadians are paying almost $2 per litre of gas at the pump, (ii) oil and gas companies are making record profits, (iii) Canada spends 14 times more on financial support to the fossil fuel sector than it does for renewable energy, the House call on the government to: (a) stop using Canadian taxpayers’ money to subsidize and finance the oil and gas sector, including by eliminating financing provided through Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada, and excluding oil and gas companies from the $2.6 billion Carbon Capture Tax Credit, by the end of 2022; and (b) re-invest savings from both these measures in renewable energy and in help for Canadians struggling with the high cost of living. She said: Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay. The climate emergency is the existential threat of our time, yet when people are worried about the cost of living, about putting food on the table and about paying rent, it is hard to focus on the climate emergency. At the same time, while Canadians are struggling with the high price of gas and the rising cost of living, big oil companies are making record profits. While Canadians pay $2 at the pump, Imperial Oil made its highest profit in 30 years and Suncor more than tripled its profits, raking in almost $3 billion in the first quarter. Despite these record profits and despite promising to end fossil fuel subsidies, the Liberals continue to hand over billions of public dollars to profitable oil and gas companies, the very same companies that are fuelling the climate crisis. Canadians should not be paying big oil to pollute. As parliamentarians, it is our job to address these pressing crises, these interconnected issues, to protect our communities and to take action. That is why New Democrats are calling on the government to stop using Canadian taxpayers’ money to subsidize and finance the oil and gas sector, including through Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada and the $2.6-billion carbon capture tax credit, reinvest those savings in renewable energy and provide help for Canadians who are struggling with the high cost of living. Last year alone, the Liberals gave out $8.6 billion in subsidies and public financing to the fossil fuel sector, over $5 billion through Export Development Canada. Canada gives more public financing to the fossil fuel industry than any other G20 country, handing out 14 times more financing to oil and gas than to renewable energy between 2018 and 2020. The Liberals have promised to accelerate Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023, but recent testimony from Finance and Environment Canada officials at the environment committee showed that the government has made very little progress on this commitment and still does not even have a clear definition of what an “inefficient fossil fuel subsidy” is, something for which the environment commissioner has consistently criticized the government. Canada also made a commitment at COP26 in November to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector internationally. The mandate letters for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources include instructions to develop a plan to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including by federal Crown corporations. Despite this being included in those mandate letters, there has been no progress on this commitment. In the U.S., President Biden has already introduced policies limiting public financing to fossil fuels, within a month of COP26. Earlier this month, a group of 112 environmental organizations, including Environmental Defence, Climate Action Network and Équiterre, sent a letter to cabinet outlining their concerns that the government's commitments on fossil fuel subsidies are not enough to meet Canada's climate targets. Not only that, but these environmental organizations are also worried about the new subsidies and public financing being made available to carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen. They are urging the government to eliminate all subsidies, public financing and financial support to the oil and gas sector by the end of this year. The Liberals say the right things, but then they fail to act. They promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but they continue to increase them. It is clear that the Liberals are going in the wrong direction with their new $2.6-billion carbon capture tax credit, the largest so-called “climate” item in the budget. In comparison, the one fossil fuel subsidy they eliminated in the budget is worth only $9 million over five years: $9 million versus $2.6 billion. The tax credit is a massive new subsidy for a carbon capture technology that is not proven at scale and is used as an excuse by oil and gas companies to justify increased production and in turn higher emissions. Reducing the carbon intensity of oil production addresses only a fraction of the life-cycle emissions of a barrel of oil; 80% of emissions occur when the oil is burned. Therefore, using carbon capture for oil and gas production, even in the best-case scenario, which currently does not exist, prevents only 3% to 15% of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere. The Liberals' emissions reduction plan released this spring relies heavily on carbon capture, but carbon capture projects have not been successfully deployed at the scale needed to make them part of a viable pathway to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. More than 80% of the carbon capture projects attempted in the U.S. have ended in failure, and Shell’s Quest carbon capture facility near Edmonton is emitting more greenhouse gases than it captures. It is the equivalent of putting over a million cars on the road. The IPCC has warned against relying too heavily on unproven technologies such as carbon capture to meet our climate goals. The Liberals will claim that the IPCC says we need carbon capture, but what the IPCC actually says is that while some carbon removal will be needed to reach net zero by 2050, carbon capture is one of the least effective and most expensive options. Experts have also told the environment committee that carbon capture should be reserved as an option of last resort for heavy industry sectors that are hard to decarbonize, such as concrete and steel, but Canada and other countries pushed for carbon removal to have an increased importance in the IPCC’s last report to justify their own flawed approach. It is very clear that the Liberal government has been listening to oil and gas lobbyists instead of to the science. It ignored the advice of over 400 experts who urged it not to go ahead with the carbon capture tax credit: It refused to even meet with them, but it was happy to meet with big oil, which has lobbied the current Liberal government and met over 6,800 times. Now, despite record profits, big oil is asking for even more government subsidies. Amazingly, at the very same time as Cenovus was announcing $1.6 billion in profits and tripling its dividends to shareholders, its CEO said that the carbon capture tax credit was not enough and that it wanted even more public dollars. Big oil could not make it any more clear that it does not want to spend a dime of its own money. These profitable oil and gas companies that are fuelling the climate crisis can afford to clean up their own pollution. Canadians should not be paying the price. Not only do we need to stop handing out billions of public dollars to profitable oil and gas companies, but we need to start investing those billions in the real climate solutions we know are so desperately needed to secure a livable planet. Continued subsidies to the oil and gas sector delay climate action, and divert precious resources from the investments in a renewable energy transition and support for the workers and communities that will be affected. Last month, the IPCC made it clear that the world urgently needs to move away from fossil fuels and make significant investments in renewable energy if we have any hope of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5°C and avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis. Renewable energy technology is ready. It is available, and the costs have decreased significantly, but the government is not making the needed investments. The IPCC said that countries such as Canada need to boost investments in renewable energy by at least a factor of three to meet our climate goals. Instead, the government continues to throw billions at the big oil and gas companies that are fuelling the crisis. Investing in renewable energy, strengthening grids, electrifying infrastructure and having energy-efficiency retrofits will not only help fight the climate crisis, but will also create good, long-term jobs for Canadians in communities across the country and will help make life more affordable. The Liberals need to stop the public financing of big oil companies now. It is not time for just more empty promises, but real action. If they are really serious about ending subsidies and ending public financing, they can start by eliminating tax credits for oil and gas exploration and development right away, which could bring in almost $10 billion over the next four years. That is $10 billion in savings that could be reinvested in renewable energy and in help for Canadians struggling with the high cost of living. Canadians are worried. They are worried about the future for their families and future generations. They are worried about how they are going to make ends meet today. We have an opportunity to tackle some of the biggest issues of our time in a way that supports those who are struggling and a way that safeguards our climate for generations to come. I urge every MP to take a look in the mirror—

1693 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 10:37:21 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up. I tried to give her a signal, but I am not sure if she saw me. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

35 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/17/22 10:37:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we have seen over the past number of years from this administration is historical amounts of money being put into the green transition. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years alone. This is a government that is committed to the green transition, and I will get an opportunity to expand on that particular point later. In this most recent budget, budget 2022, there was a commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that commitment.

100 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/17/22 10:38:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2019 the Liberals promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Instead, they increased them. The Liberals have been in power for almost seven years and have been increasing fossil fuel subsidies to the tune of, on average, $900 million each year. That is just the increase. Now they are providing a new subsidy of $2.6 billion to oil and gas companies that are making record profits. It is hard to believe the Liberal promises when they continue to do the exact opposite of what they say.

89 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 10:39:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague in the NDP for putting forward this motion, and I appreciate the subsidiary of the Liberal Party actually putting forward a motion we can address here in the House of Commons. I would like to ask the member about some of the numbers. She talked about $8.6 billion being provided by the government in subsidies, yet there is no tangibility of that $8.6 billion actually flowing through the government's accounts. I know that EDC provides some loans: Loans are not gifts, and are market-based from EDC at this point in time. I have been searching for the actual subsidies provided to this industry and have found virtually none to an industry that provided over $20 billion in 2021, so I would love it if she would do that. I am going to put a definition on here. Would the member entertain a definition for what an inefficient fossil fuel, or any subsidy is, to this motion? Would she entertain that going forward so we can compare apples to apples?

179 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/17/22 10:40:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to look at the WTO's definition. It is a internationally recognized definition of what a subsidy is. It includes those kinds of loans and public financing supports to a specific sector that convey a benefit. If we take internationally recognized definitions, such as the WTO's or the UN's, we would actually be including things like the government's recent $10-billion loan for the TMX pipeline. We would be including so many more things than the government actually deems to be a fossil fuel subsidy. The government has not only promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but it has also promised to eliminate public financing. It has promised to phase out public financing to this sector. This sector is making record profits, and we could be taking those billions of dollars and investing them in the climate solutions that are so desperately needed.

153 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/17/22 10:41:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have known about the Liberal government's unfortunate propensity for funding oil and gas for quite some time now. I am glad my colleague moved this motion. There is one small problem, however. The NDP-Liberal marriage means that the NDP will be forced to vote in favour of the $2.6 billion set aside for carbon capture strategies. Not only will the NDP be voting in favour, but they have asked to cut short the debate. Does my colleague think that putting the health of the planet at risk is a high price to pay for dental insurance?

103 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/17/22 10:41:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly proud that my NDP colleagues and I have pushed the government and used our power in a minority Parliament to not only secure the largest expansion of health care in a generation, but also to secure commitments to a just transition on low-income energy retrofits and on reducing emissions. What this means is that we are going to be pushing the government to fulfill on its commitments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. It is part of the reason we are bringing forward this motion today. I will continue to push the government to take real action to invest at the scale that actually meets the urgency of this crisis.

115 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73