SoVote

May/17/22 10:53:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals did promise, in 2019, to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies, and then they amended it to say “inefficient”. Well, “inefficient” means anything they want it to, such as the $570 million the government gave to the methane cleanup, and we have no proof that the money was actually spent on dealing with methane. The issue here, in terms of Putin's war, has certainly exacerbated the price of oil. It has created a crisis, and that has to be addressed. However, we were told the government was going to have an electric vehicle plan. We do not even have a plan to get the charging stations. Canadians across Canada would love to buy an electric vehicle, but if they cannot plug it in, what are they going to do? I am looking at the budget, and I see more support for oil and gas than I see for the clean energy alternatives.

161 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

May/17/22 10:54:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's honesty in saying that he opposes affordable gasoline for Canadians. He wants high gas prices. My question to the member is this: Why will his partners in the Liberal government not also claim victory on this? The Liberals brought in the carbon tax with the stated purpose of raising gas taxes at the pump. That is what happened. Now they are running for cover and blaming it on Russia. I will give members one example. In my riding, a litre of gasoline is $2.00 a litre. Across the border, 10 minutes away in Maine, it is $1.50. That is a 50¢ difference. Now, all that gasoline comes from the same place, which is the refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. Maine does not have a more efficient refinery with harder workers or lower input costs. It is coming from the same place. That difference is all tax. I would say it is mission accomplished, as they are driving up the price of energy in this country. Why will the Liberals not also claim credit on this and say, “Mission accomplished”?

192 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 10:55:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member has to put on a little circus act and make complete misrepresentations. This is a party that has supported convoy people supporting white replacement theory. This is a party supporting anti-vaxxers. Now, the Conservatives are claiming that we support high gas prices, when we see that they are misrepresenting the carbon tax. Do members know that if Suncor was not carbon taxed, it would pay $830 million instead of the $30 million it pays now? The carbon tax is not causing this, and we see the price gouging that the Conservatives support time and time again because they are total puppets for big oil's interests.

117 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

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

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 10:56:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is pretty sad to see the Bloc members so angry because they sit in the corner and nobody listens to them any more. The fact is, we got the largest investment in public health care since Tommy Douglas and, oh boy, does that upset a group that does not want any investments at the federal level, so now they are going to claim that us taking the Liberals on is somehow puppetry. We are seeing that the Bloc members are not even puppets. They are just an audience, and as an audience, they are not even participating properly and doing their work. They came here to defend Quebec, but we do not see them defending Quebec. It was the New Democrats who stood up to defend the extra seats in the House. They just stood to say, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” An hon. member: Oh, oh!

152 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 10:57:33 a.m.
Watch

Order. Before we continue, we are starting to have other members wanting to participate when they should not be participating. I would ask parliamentarians to wait until I recognize them during questions and comments. That is the best way for the House function properly. Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has the floor.

68 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/17/22 10:58:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South. Climate change and the environment are very important to me and my community. It guides the work that I do in this place, and that is because the threat is not theoretical. It is real. It is happening right now. Right across our country last summer we saw floods and wildfires. These events destroyed people's homes and their livelihoods. We need to take strong action as we face this reality. Today, I will focus on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which we have committed to do by 2023, but I would like to begin by talking about the heavy lifting that we must do and that we are doing right now to fight climate change. One of the most impactful and earliest steps we took was to put a price on carbon pollution. It encourages businesses and individuals to make choices that result in fewer emissions. It is a strong market mechanism, and all of the funds that are collected through the price on carbon pollution are returned to the province where it is collected. None of it stays with the federal government. I want to be clear about that because sometimes I feel like that is lost in our conversations. It is described sometimes as a tax, but that was clearly put to bed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not, and none of the funds stay here with the federal government. It is all returned to individuals and the provinces from where they were taken. I will give some good news. We have finally begun to flatten the curve on emissions. The first year when we saw the curve beginning to flatten was 2019. There was a decoupling. The economy grew, but emissions did not grow at the same pace, and in 2020, our emissions dropped. Much of that was due to the pandemic and the fact that we reduced travel. There is no doubt about that, but part of that drop was also due to the fact that we have cleaned up our electrical grid As part of that, we are well on our way to removing coal-fired electricity from our electrical grid, which would reduce air pollution and emissions. We are investing in nature-based solutions, such as planting two billion trees and working to protect our lands and waters. We have put into law that we must achieve net zero in our country by 2050. We released the emissions reduction plan under the law for net zero by 2050, which sets projections for all sectors of our economy to reduce emissions and includes mechanisms to reduce combustion of fossil fuels, such as moving to 100% of all new vehicle sales being zero emissions by 2050. Today's motion focuses on the narrower issue of fossil fuel subsidies and the work we are doing toward our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The commitment began in 2009, when Canada joined other members of the G20 in agreeing to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. The leaders' statement from that G20 said, “This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Previously, we had committed to meet the goal by 2025, and over the last year we have accelerated that timeline to be completed by 2023. So far, the government has rationalized or phased out the following nine tax measures that had provided preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel sector: the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, which was was announced in budget 2007 and completed in 2015; the reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2011 and completed in 2016; the phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors, which was announced in budget 2012 and completed in 2017; the reduction in the deduction rate for preproduction intangible mine development expenses to align with rate for the oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2018; the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2021; allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025, which was announced in budget 2016; rationalize the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling, which was announced in budget 2017 and completed in 2021; a phase-out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favourably treated exploration expenses, which was announced in 2017 and completed in 2019; and the phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities, which was proposed in budget 2022 and will be completed in 2023. As part of the process to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, G20 countries have been pairing among themselves for a transparent review of their work. In 2018, Canada committed to undergoing a peer review process with Argentina. We are the fourth pair of countries within the G20 to undertake that process, and it is ongoing. The previous six countries to do a peer review have generally considered fossil fuel subsidies based on the World Trade Organization's definition of “subsidy”, which is government spending, tax or non-tax, that provides a benefit. Further, countries have tailored that definition to subsidies aimed at the fossil fuel sector by focusing on those that directly or indirectly lead to increases in the production or consumption of fossil fuels. To complete our own work to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2018 conducted an extensive review of non-tax measures. This was complemented by a consultation that ran from March to June 2019 on the government's draft framework to review measures outside the tax system. This feedback is taken into account in the work being done by Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is reasonable to expect that the question of what type of spending is aligned with a transition to net zero will change over time. In other words, government spending in support of the transition to a net-zero, reliable, affordable energy system could look different in 2023 from how it will look in the future. I will provide an example. Support for diesel use in northern and remote communities may need to continue in the short term to ensure the provision of essential energy services. However, in the longer term, as the government continues to invest in ways of moving these communities off diesel, these types of supports may no longer be considered aligned with government objectives once viable replacement options are put in place. Before my time is up, I would like to address the motion's reference to carbon capture and storage. At a time when we need every tool at our disposal to reduce emissions, this is not the moment to remove support for carbon capture and storage. The IPCC has recognized that it plays a role in reducing emissions, as does the International Energy Agency. It is one part of what needs to be done to reduce our country's emissions and reach net zero. Recently, at the environment committee, Professor Normand Mousseau shared the following testimony in response to a question from the member for Victoria. He stated: We absolutely have to implement all reduction measures, but we're also going to have to invest in capture and storage. I'm not talking about utilization, I mean storage. Otherwise, we won't be able to achieve net zero. We believe it is important to focus on how programs can support climate targets, international commitments, long-term prosperity and job creation in the face of a global energy transition. It is global. This is happening all around the world. Canada is on a journey to a net-zero future, one that will be anchored by a clean, affordable and reliable energy system. It is important to ensure that government spending and investment are well aligned with that journey. That is the work that we are doing and are committed to completing.

1414 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/17/22 11:07:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in having my hon. colleague explain to me the fact that there was no business case for TMX. The public was told to buy it for $4.7 billion. Then it was $17.3 billion. Now there is another $10 billion on top of that in loans. That is public money to export and expand oil production. That oil production of an extra 800,000 or a million barrels a day goes offshore and does not count in Canada's emissions. My hon. colleague said this is a global issue, and I totally agree with her. Would she not agree that it does not matter where the oil is burned, as it is still affecting the planet? If we have 2025 as a target to stop increasing production, why is the government using taxpayers' money to export oil to be burned in other jurisdictions, which will not be counted on its register?

158 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

May/17/22 11:08:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the way we calculate our emissions around the world, by international agreement, is by looking at what is combusted within our own countries. We are in fact, through the emissions reductions plan, putting forward strong projections for all sectors. When we focus on oil and gas, it is not just oil and gas. In a city like Toronto, buildings are one of the largest sources of emissions. We are putting forward projections for all sectors across our economy to reduce our combustion in a very active way. That is why, when I talk about things like zero-emission vehicles, those are all part of the plan, as are retrofits for buildings. We are doing the work that we need to do, and we are providing international support for countries that need to do that work at home as well.

141 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/17/22 11:09:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech from the member. Canada is responsible for less than 3% overall of global GHGs, so I really do want a real answer to this. My constituents ask, has the government determined what impact it would have on the growth of oil and gas production in the rest of the world if we were to replace all of Canada's oil and gas production, which is the cleanest, most ethical, highest-quality production in the world, and it was shut down completely over the next 20 to 30 years? What impact would such a shutdown of Canada's resources have on the global environmental levels and the world's ability to reach net zero, and what impact would it have on the Canadian economy and on the ability of Canada to fund Canadian innovation in green technology?

143 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

May/17/22 11:10:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with the first part of that. I hear this argument a lot, about Canada's footprint as a global player not being that large, so what does it matter what we are doing here? It matters a lot. That is what we need to do. We need to reduce our emissions, and that is what we are doing. Let me get to the emissions piece. The emissions piece is what we are focusing on. That is what the atmosphere sees, emissions. It is not a matter of trying to focus on production. We have said very clearly that the oil and gas cap is about emissions. We have an emissions reductions plan that is geared to reducing those emissions, and we are taking the actions in investing and also supporting Canadian innovation to get to where we need to go to do that. That is good for our economy, because that is the economy of the future. That is the economy the world is looking for, and we are going to be competitive in it.

182 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/17/22 11:11:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if, and only if, the Liberal government has good economists, then it did a cost-benefit benefit analysis of its investments, whether in capture and storage or in the oil industry through its Crown corporations. What about the cost of inaction and the consequences of climate change, which are quantifiable and priced in real money?

57 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

May/17/22 11:11:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are making investments where we need to for our economy, but also for the environment. That is what we have talked about, that is what we are doing, that is what shows in our work. For example, currently a company in Windsor, here in Canada, is starting to manufacture batteries for all of North America. That is what we need. It is good for the economy and good for our environment.

74 words

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/17/22 11:12:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion by the hon. member for Victoria is not only timely and important, but very reassuring. As I read the member's motion, I found much common ground across the aisle, including a shared recognition that energy security is ultimately about climate action. How so? The International Energy Agency, or the IEA, defines “energy security” as the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price. As the motion implies, if we want to secure an uninterrupted and stable energy supply, we have to accelerate the switch to lower-emitting energy sources, and we have to do so in ways that are affordable to Canadians. Otherwise, we risk exacerbating existing equity issues and losing some of the political will that has accumulated to drive climate action. Therefore, we are clearly on the same page with the member opposite when she talks about the need to invest in renewable sources of energy and support both energy security and affordability. In fact, that is a central focus of the 2030 emissions reduction plan that our government released at the end of March. It is a comprehensive mix of new investments, subsidies and incentives that build on the more than $100 billion we have already committed to climate action since coming to office in 2015. The plan also includes hard caps on emissions from every economic sector, as well as stronger environmental regulations and new sales mandates for electric vehicles, all of them aimed, ultimately, at making Canada a net-zero nation by 2050. Put another way, our 2030 emissions reduction plan is about protecting the environment in ways that actually unlock new economic opportunities. It is about cutting pollution and creating good jobs. Where needed, it is about providing training, skills, development and other support to workers and communities, so that clean growth works for everyone in every sector of our economy and every region of our country. Investing in renewable sources of energy is a key part of our plan. There is simply no way to reach our climate targets while ensuring our economy remains strong and globally competitive without a sustainable, low-carbon energy sector. Frankly, renewables have been part of our climate action plan since we sent our first delegation to COP 2015, which was just weeks after we formed government in 2015. Our level of commitment to investing in renewable sources of energy has only grown from there. Just last year, we launched our $1.5-billion clean fuels fund to support the next generation of fuel production. With this new fund, we are supporting feasibility and front-end engineering and design studies, helping to establish biomass supply chains, creating new markets for waste from forestry and agriculture, and developing essential codes and standards, ensuring that new technologies can enter the market reliably. Best of all, we expect to create more than 35,000 direct and indirect jobs through this fund and leverage an additional $3.5 billion in other public and private investments over the next five years, all while helping to reduce our emissions by up to 12 megatonnes. Budget 2022 further builds on that and is highlighted by a world-leading $15-billion Canada growth fund and an expansion and extension of the low-carbon economy fund, with a further $2.2 billion. Other measures specifically advance our capacity to produce renewable energy. Electricity is a case in point. We have committed to a net-zero electricity system by 2035, and our new federal budget includes further investments to get us there. They include $250 million over four years to support pre-development activities of clean electricity projects of national significance, such as interprovincial electricity transmission projects and small modular reactors. These projects build on what our government is already doing to advance similar work on the Atlantic loop and prairie link projects. There are also $600 million over seven years for the smart renewables and electrification pathways program to support additional renewable electricity and grid modernization projects, $2.4 million in 2022-23 to establish a pan-Canadian grid council, which would provide external advice in support of national and regional electricity planning, and $25 million to establish regional strategic initiatives to work with provinces, territories and relevant stakeholders to develop net-zero energy plans. As we invest in renewables, we are also helping Canadians to use less energy, such as with the Canada greener homes grant that was launched in May of last year. It offers grants of up to $5,000 to help Canadians finance resiliency and energy efficient retrofits in their homes. The program has proved to be very popular, with over 150,000 homeowners applying through the national portal and another 50,000 coming in through our co-delivery partners of Quebec and Nova Scotia. Of course, carbon capture, use and storage also figure prominently in our emissions reduction plan and our 2022 budget. Carbon capture technologies have also been a part of Canada's plan since the turn of the century, when an international team of scientists descended on an oil field in Saskatchewan to study the feasibility of injecting carbon dioxide into a geologic formation. Almost two decades later, carbon capture has emerged from the laboratory as a commercially viable option, but the sheer scale of these projects demands continued collaboration to reduce costs, which means that we cannot afford to be excluding potential partners as we try to achieve an economy of scale with the technology. That is where I part ways with the member opposite and her motion. We need all hands on deck to fight climate change. With our abundance of natural resources and skilled labour, Canada is well positioned to lead global growth in CCUS as it supports our investments in renewables. The oil and gas industry, which contributes 26% of Canada's overall emissions but also directly employs over 70,000 people, should not and will not be excluded. That said, it is our intention that the tax credit cannot be used for enhanced oil recovery. Simply put, the tax credit would be an effective way to further mobilize substantial private capital towards clean technologies in energy, driving down costs and encouraging widespread market adoption. When it comes to climate change, I think colleagues will agree that there is no magic bullet. We need to use every tool in the tool box, and we need every partner we can get to help us achieve our goals. We have the ambition, the know-how and the plan to build a bright, healthy future for everyone.

1096 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

May/17/22 11:20:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just concluded by stating that we need to use every tool in our tool box to fight climate change. The previous parliamentary secretary stated that Canada's emissions are counted by all of the fossil fuels burned here in Canada. I assume that includes our imported fossil fuels, as well. Can the hon. member explain then why the price on pollution applies to Canadian-generated natural gas and oil, and not to imports? Is it because they come into eastern Canada versus western Canada? I wonder if he can help me understand why every tool in our tool box does not include a price on carbon on imported fuels.

114 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/17/22 11:21:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the price on pollution applies where the fuel is combusted, as the parliamentary secretary before me said. I would just like to point out to the hon. member that I have been watching the Conservative leadership debates, and they are still debating whether climate change is real or not. I know there are some enlightened Conservatives out there who believe climate change is real and that we need to address this existential crisis that is facing us now and will face our children and grandchildren.

92 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

May/17/22 11:21:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we are discussing today, the climate emergency is here. It is clear that the Liberal government is not doing enough to deal with the emergency of the issue that we are facing. Peguis First Nation in Manitoba has been devastated by unprecedented flooding, which is a clear sign of the climate emergency. As my colleague said, we need to use all tools available to us. Will his government commit to immediate investment in long-term mitigation infrastructure in Peguis, first nations and northern communities that are currently paying the price for the climate emergency? We have put a bill forward on this front, with respect to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We need all levers of government to support communities in fighting climate change now. Will the government commit to supporting Peguis?

134 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/17/22 11:22:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are feeling the impacts of climate change up close and personal in Manitoba. My heart goes out to the good people of Peguis and other first nations communities that have been evacuated. We have experienced two “once-in-300-year” floods in the past decade: in 2011 and 2014. As the hon. member will know, many people were evacuated from their homes. Many of them were first nations. That is why, yesterday, the minister introduced a national adaptation strategy that will help us to build resiliency for our communities. It is why we have spent $100 billion, and an additional $9.1 billion for the emissions reduction plan. We not only have to address adaptation, but we have to address the mitigation issue: that is causing these flooding issues the hon. member has brought to our attention.

142 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/17/22 11:24:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am so fed up with the Liberals' hypocrisy on fighting climate change. I have been listening to them for two to three years in this place. They keep using the words “green transition” and “sustainable development”. At least my Conservative friends do not lie. They are not interested in fighting climate change. They just ignore it. At least they do not pretend. The Liberals could not care less either, but they pretend to be interested. Let us look at their spending. That would be $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, $12.6 billion to expand Trans Mountain, $2.7 billion for an accelerated investment incentive, and $750 million for the new fund. Those are the subsidies the Liberals have been handing out to the fossil fuel industry for a few years now. We have never managed to reach the target. Canada is one of the worst performers in the world when it comes to climate targets. That is scandalous. I condemn my Liberal friends' hypocrisy.

179 words

Mr. Terry Duguid

May/17/22 11:25:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, the Bloc thinks this government is doing absolutely nothing. We have invested $100 billion in climate action. We flattened the curve. The hon. member from Timmins mentioned his view was that the emissions reduction plan was a scam. The World Wildlife Fund, David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver from the Green Party have all praised our plan. They are a little more objective than the member opposite.

77 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73