SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:25:51 a.m.
Watch

Before I go to resuming debate, I did not want to interrupt during questions and comments because it takes time away, but I want to remind members they should not be thinking out loud. I would ask them to hold on to their thoughts until they are recognized during questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

62 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC)

May/17/22 11:26:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion. I should just mention I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre. I think today it is important for us to be clear about what is being debated. The NDP has a motion that references the high cost of gasoline, but it does not suggest what could be done. They are actually suggesting that we should see the prices increase. I think it is good, and I think it is important, for the NDP to be transparent about its position. I think New Democrats have been abundantly clear as to what they want to have happen. They have said that they believe the oil and gas sector in the country of Canada should be shut down. They have been very clear. There is no ambiguity. They have said that the 500,000 jobs should be done away with, and they have an idea as to how they can get them employed in coffee shops or maybe art studios, but they want to see those jobs eliminated. They want to see the energy sector shut down. They also want to see the price of gasoline driven up even further. They have been abundantly clear in that regard, but I think this is a bad strategy. I think this is a path to destruction and hardship for the vast majority of Canadians. The folks I am hearing from in my constituency are desperately concerned about the high cost of living and, over the past number of months, the devastating impact of high fuel prices on household budgets. I live in a rural community. My constituency is a rural and northern community, so many of the folks who are employed in my constituency live in rural communities or they work in rural communities. They drive pickup trucks to get to work. Those are essential vehicles. They cannot take the subway, Uber or a Prius. They have to get into their pickups and they have to get to work, and many of these people are paying up to a day's wages to fill the tank of an essential vehicle to get to their jobs. The NDP and the Liberals have worked together over the past number of months not only to maintain these high prices, but to elevate the price through their additional carbon taxes. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that taxation on gasoline amounts to about 50¢ a litre. Many politicians have talked about how bad it is that there is a high cost for gasoline. It is amazing. There is something we, as politicians, could actually do. As a matter of fact, the Province of Alberta, for a temporary period of time, did something. Its government eliminated some of the gas taxes, which brought relief to households in the province of Alberta. I believe the federal government should take a lesson from that, do what is the right thing to do and make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast. Not only does the NDP want to see the price of gasoline go up, as I mentioned, but it wants to eliminate the industry altogether. Let us just think about that for a period of time. If we eliminate the sector in the country of Canada, a number of things would happen. Canadians would continue to need to use oil and gas, so we would import it. From where would we import it? We would import it from the same places every country does that does not import Canadian oil and gas. This means countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. I can tell members, Canadians and you, Madam Speaker, this, and I am hopeful my colleagues in the NDP and the Liberal Party are listening. I know that Canadians do not want to see oil and gas flowing into Canada from places like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, which have far lower human rights records and environmental stewardship records. I can tell members that, while the NDP may want to shut down the industry here in Canada, we have seen what happens when other countries attempt this. It means they become dependent on other countries and places for their fuel needs, and they become less able to diversify their own economies. The price of fuel is at an all-time high, and the NDP is suggesting that the solution should be that we shut down the industry. New Democrats say we should shut down the subsidies. As has been articulated by the government, and as has been articulated by the industry, these are actually not the subsidies the NDP would suggest. There are subsidies that take place within Canada relating to the oil and gas sector, and those are the significant subsidies the industry makes to the Canadian population. The taxes collected from the industry to the government in Canada amount to nearly $20 billion. The NDP solution to the challenges that we face today is to shut down the industry, continue to see prices of gasoline rise and shut down the $20 billion in revenue that the industry pays into municipal, provincial and federal coffers. That $20 billion pays for roads, maintenance of our communities, health care systems, schools and universities, as well as the important services that the federal government provides. The NDP's suggestion is that, if we just eliminate this industry, all would be harmonious and we would happily continue on our merry way. The NDP gives no regard to the $20 billion that is invested from the industry every single year. More importantly, the NDP talks about shutting down the industry, and it never talks about the important jobs that the industry creates, whether it is the 500,000 jobs the industry creates directly or the indirect jobs that are created in every community across this country. In the old days, the NDP used to be the defender of the blue-collar worker. It used to be the defender of rural communities. It used to be the defender of the little guy. The vast majority of the people who work in the energy sector in the province of Alberta and throughout the country are exactly the people who the NDP used to represent. Unfortunately, the NDP have now completely abandoned those folks. In a community like mine, where we have a very diversified economy, with oil and gas, agriculture, forestry, a good service sector and a good retail sector, everybody in close proximity understands that their well-being is connected to everybody else's well-being. The retailer knows that if we shut down the energy sector, their energy costs would skyrocket, which they are of course opposed to, but they also understand the importance of their success being connected to the jobs that are created within in our community and the spinoff benefits within our community. The thing the NDP conveniently likes to forget, when they talk about the environment and the need to transition from oil and gas to new energies, is that it would be following the path Kathleen Wynne's government took here in the province of Ontario. It spent billions of dollars— An hon. member: Now, that is a dirty personal attack. Mr. Chris Warkentin: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from the NDP—

1226 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:35:08 a.m.
Watch

Order, order. I would like to remind members that it is not time for questions and comments. The hon. member has one minute and— An hon. member: Do not ever call me Kathleen Wynne. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay will come to order. There is one minute and six seconds left. The NDP has the first question on this, and I am sure he will be able to get up to ask questions and make comments. An hon. member: Madam Speaker, I am just hurt. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie has the floor.

114 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin

May/17/22 11:35:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I never would have accused the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay of having been a Liberal until recently, when he made that dirty deal with the Prime Minister to continue to drive up gasoline prices and follow the path of Kathleen Wynne, who was trying to shut down the oil and gas and resource sectors, while investing billions of dollars in these concepts of green energy that never came to fruition. The money was wasted in Ontario. The taxes went up to pay for those wasted experiments, and Ontarians still have to rely on traditional energy sources. However, that is exactly what the NDP suggests. As a matter of fact, not only is the oil and gas sector an important investor in our communities, our governments and all the rest of it, but it is also one of the largest investors in clean tech in the country. The unique difference between the oil and gas sector and government investment in clean tech is that the oil and gas sector invests in clean tech that actually results in something beneficial for our communities, whereas there is waste in the government spending on these fronts.

197 words

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

May/17/22 11:37:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great amusement. I have great respect for him. It was getting kind of out there, but that is okay. He has a job to do. I would like to ask him about some work we did together while he was committee chair trying to get accountability on the Kielburger brothers because this issue has been brought back up in the public media. I am very concerned about the fact that, in 10 months of trying to get the basic financial information of how many corporations there are, who had the finances and who owned what, we could not get a single clear picture. This was a parliamentary committee and what was obstructing us the whole time was their chief financial officer, Victor Li. We kept being told that he was off sick some place, but they had nobody else to replace them. The hon. member was the chair of that committee, and this was the frustration he faced. This is a children's charity. Children's charities should have pretty clear books. Why were we not able to get basic answers from their chief financial officer, Victor Li, and the rest of that group?

202 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:38:06 a.m.
Watch

I do want to remind members that the questions on the debate should be focused on the motion before the House. I will allow the hon. member to answer, but I do want to remind members that they are to make sure there is relevancy.

45 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin

May/17/22 11:38:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, clearly the member was swayed by my speech because he is now changing the subject. I commend him for that. He is right that we were stalled not only by the WE organization but also by the Liberal government in its unwillingness to be transparent. They moved heaven and earth to ensure that the secrets remain secret. I know that the member believes there was information the Canadian taxpayer deserves to know. The corruption that was alleged, and the corruption that was starting to be exposed, never got to see the light of day because of the work of the Liberal Party. That is why I am so concerned about the deal the NDP has struck with the Liberal government to keep the corrupt government in power.

129 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 11:39:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, many Conservatives kind of live in the past, and we see that in their attitudes toward climate change. The member made reference to the idea of trucks. He gets into the truck, and he takes his drive. It is all that kind of stuff. He says that is what his constituents want. I think that the Conservatives have the mentality of not really understanding the importance of the climate change issue. To get a lesson from Ford Canada, if we want to buy a brand new Ford half-ton truck that is electric, we will be waiting for four years. Even his constituents realize that the need for transition, change and going to hybrids and electric vehicles is there. When does he believe the Conservative Party is going to catch up with the rest of Canadians in regard to the transition?

143 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin

May/17/22 11:40:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is the kind of disrespect and disgusting behaviour of “Ottawa knows best” that we see in the House. Saying to my constituents to turn off their pickup for the next four years and wait until there is an electric truck available to them, and suggesting that they are living in the past because they will not immediately transition to a vehicle that is not yet available to them, is disgusting and despicable. The member should apologize.

81 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/17/22 11:41:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us come back to the topic at hand. In his speech, my colleague mentioned that, although the oil industry is heavily subsidized, it also brings in a lot of revenue and that that money is used for other things. The figure he mentioned was $20 billion a year. Did he forget about the $10 billion that we are paying into the industry? Did he forget about the $10 billion invested in Trans Mountain? Did he forget about the $2.4 billion the government just promised for carbon capture, a technique that we know does not work? Most importantly, did he forget about how much climate change is costing? We only have to think about what happened in British Columbia last year. At some point, the government needs to start getting serious and move forward in the right direction. It needs to stop name-calling and saying that there are dishonest people. I understand that members work for their constituents. We must continue to put money into those ridings as we are doing now, but that money should be used for the energy transition. Is it not time to do that?

198 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73