SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:50:00 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

15 words

May/17/22 11:50:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, when we speak in the House we have to have at least some connection with the truth, and the member is straying far from any semblance of relying on the truth here.

44 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:50:16 a.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, my focus was somewhere else at the time. I will have to review what the hon. member said and come back to decide whether or not this is an actual point of order. I want to remind members to make sure when they are debating that what they say is relevant and that they hopefully provide factual information. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

65 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/17/22 11:50:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is the first time that anybody in the NDP has actually challenged me on the truth because the motion they put on the table here is riddled with misinformation, so let us get to the heart of the matter. Do we realize the cost when we lose 522,000 jobs in Canada? It would be devastating for families across this country and there would no longer be any social support provided through that industry, which funds our country more than any other industry in Canada right now. My colleague pointed out that $20 billion was supplied by this industry as economic rent to governments across Canada last year alone, in not that prosperous a year for oil and gas companies in Canada. That $20 billion would be in addition to the $52-billion deficit, plus all of the economic dislocation that would happen if we actually tried to change this industry more than it is actually already changing itself. Industry has its own job to do and it is doing it very well. I am going to move to where we are actually looking at this whole notion of profitability. There is something called the reinvestment ratio. When the government came to power, the reinvestment ratio, which is the amount of money the oil and gas companies were spending to drill and develop new resources versus the amount they were actually paying back, was 1.82. That means for every dollar that they earned, they put $1.82 back in the ground to develop a future resource for Canada. It was a development industry. That number now, members would be surprised to learn, is actually down to 0.29, so 29% of the money that comes through the industry actually gets put into development. That is because there is no line of sight on what happens to the money in the future, and that is a result of extremely poor policies from the government. There is no line of sight. Yes, the government has had to step in and buy infrastructure that should have been built by the private sector, but its policies punished those private sector organizations by asking how we invest in a country where there is no line of sight on how we actually earn money on our investments. Government investment is fine. Private sector investment actually looks to make sure it gets a return on its investment. It is a concept most of my colleagues, in all four parties in the House, have almost no concept about: a return on investment. That is required around the world, not just in Canada. Let us talk about the environment a bit. Let us talk about carbon capture, because my colleagues here will know it is one of my premier pieces about how we actually decarbonize the world. Somebody referenced the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agency, an international organization, of course, says that 7% of our decarbonization will come from carbon capture, utilization and storage over the next 20 years. However, 7% is not enough. Let us find more ways to decarbonize this industry. When we think about methane reductions in Canada, we lead the world on our environmental practices and how we are actually getting to a better environmental outcome for the world. The industry's production of hydrocarbons is down 30% in its carbon intensity over the past 15 years. That leads every Canadian industry in its decarbonization. That leads every country in the world, as far as oil and gas industries go. The only two countries we need to compare ourselves with in this regard are the United States and Norway. They are our only two peers. We are far better than the United States and we are on par with Norway, both of which have better carbon capture regimes than we do. We need to do better and make sure that our environmental practices match those of the most advanced countries in the world. We need to be the most advanced country in the world on these decarbonization initiatives. I am going to deviate now, because I think in the spirit of productivity and in actually working with my colleagues across the aisles, I am going to propose an amendment to this bill where we add at the bottom: (c) the Government of Canada identifies and eliminates inefficient energy industry subsidies by 2023. It should clearly identify, quantify and phase out programs for the Canadian energy sector that subsidize compliance with existing regulations. 1. Inefficient subsidies shall be deemed as those government grants or payments below market, provisions of capital, contracts for differences, social financing, unequal capital cost allowance allocation differentials, trade access, program funding and expenditures to reduce delayed taxation, such as flow-through financing mechanisms, as provided by all levels of government; 2. Further, “inefficient” shall be interpreted to mean the incentives granted under such programming shall result in fewer funds being provided to all levels of government as a result of the programming. That is, the economic rent received by the various levels of government must be less than that received had the subsidy not been implemented; 3. In addition, as energy is an essential input to society and human development, and the source of the energy is fungible with respect to its social utility, the common measurements be applied across all energy sources that receive any government subsidies or programming from all levels of government. Common comparison elements must include full cycle costing, including purchase and disposition of capital equipment and common depreciation schedules, capital cost allowance rates and accredited capital costs. The level of comparison in costs and benefits is essential to determining relative efficiency of subsidization; 4. Such inefficient allocation of government resources shall not be applied to programming that aims to obtain societal objectives beyond the aim of sourcing safe, secure, affordable energy for Canadians, specifically programming applied for scientific advancements in environmental technologies to better the outcomes—

998 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:56:45 a.m.
Watch

I'm sorry, I think there is probably a problem with interpretation. The hon. member for Shefford.

17 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/17/22 11:56:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the interpreter said that she did not receive the member's amendment, so it is harder for her to provide an interpretation of it.

26 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:57:05 a.m.
Watch

It seems that the interpretation did not get a copy of the amendment ahead of time, so I would just maybe ask the hon. member to slow down. I invite the hon. member to repeat point number four.

38 words

Interpretation

Mr. Greg McLean

May/17/22 11:57:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 4. Inefficient allocation of government resources shall not be applied to programming that aims to attain societal objectives beyond the aim of sourcing safe, secure, affordable energy for Canadians; specifically, programming applied for scientific advancements in environmental technologies to better the outcomes of energy sources that are by design inefficient, particularly at the early stages of development, which is when government action through programming is most importantly applied to derive better societal outcomes. It is an amendment that is meant to allow the government the ability to fund these new environmental technologies that are always more expensive for industry at the front end and actually continue to kind of compare a base level about what the subsidy is in this industry versus these other industries where the government is shovelling money out the door right now, to try and say this is more important for us than others. I am hoping—

154 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 11:58:45 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member can table his amendment, but to elaborate on it is a point of debate. I want to remind the member and all members in the House that if they have something in writing, whether it is their speech or whether it is amendments or motions, it is always best to ensure that interpretation has access to that and that it is provided to interpretation in order to ensure that every member in the House is fully aware of what is being said. I just wanted to remind members again. It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion or, in the case that he/she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the NDP House leader if he consents to this amendment being moved. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

186 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/17/22 12:00:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is another muddled mess of an amendment from the Conservatives, so no I do not.

18 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 12:00:13 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

11 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/17/22 12:00:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Calgary Centre. This time, though, it was so unrelated to the facts that it was quite unbelievable. Here we have a situation where we know we are talking about $8.6 billion in subsidies last year alone. There were record profits in the oil and gas sector and at the same time, people were being gouged at the pumps. The Conservatives do not seem to recognize any of those realities. I came out of the oil industry and worked at the Shellburn Oil Refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia. I also worked in social enterprise and won a number of business awards. I understand return on investment, but when Canadians are investing $8.6 billion in subsidies, and we are seeing the increasing cost of climate change now reaching billions of dollars a year that impact Canadians right across the country, why do the Conservatives continue to deny the reality of climate change? Why do they continue to deny the reality of subsidies? Why do they deny the reality of the important issue that is before the House today?

188 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/17/22 12:01:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague asked a question, although it was a bunch of hyperboles. Let me respond very adroitly: $8.6 billion is not a subsidy number provided. If he wants to understand the definition of what a subsidy is, perhaps he can look it up before he comes in this House and accuses me of an ad hominem like not believing in climate change. That was a ridiculous comment and he should stand down immediately.

79 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 12:02:09 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 12:02:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not want to challenge the Conservatives on whether they believe in climate change, but the member should get some better acting skills if he is going to pretend he believes in climate change.

37 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 12:02:24 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

12 words

Secretary

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

May/17/22 12:02:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that within the Conservative Party, even within the leadership of the party, there is serious concern about some members being climate change deniers. That is just a reality. It might not necessarily be the member who just spoke, but it is an issue within the Conservative Party. Can the member explain to the House why, when the Conservatives were in administration of the Government of Canada for 10 years, they failed in getting resources to tidewaters on either one of the coasts when it came to pipelines?

93 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/17/22 12:03:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not here to litigate what happened over 10 years ago. I do know a handful of pipelines were built in the previous administration, contrary to what the Prime Minister puts on the floor of the House of Commons, which is again complete misinformation. This seems to be allowed in this House, which surprises me and my constituents. If the member across who asked the question actually wants to look at what is being built in Canada right now, can he tell me why TMX is taking so long to get built? It is because of irregularity of process that his government has introduced in actually getting projects built in Canada. That is why capital is fleeing Canada and why projects do not get built here. It is why there is no investment from private capital.

139 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/17/22 12:04:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleague from Calgary Centre was not offended by my little joke earlier. I loved his speech, and I barely missed a second of it. The Conservative members spoke earlier about the billions of dollars the oil industry reinvests in society, and we have also heard about the extraordinary profitability of the sector. The first quarter of 2022 does show record profits for Canadian oil companies. At the same time, however, consumers are paying exorbitant taxes at the pump and then paying huge subsidies to the industry though their taxes. I have a very simple question that should be easy to answer. Given the situation, would it not be better to reduce or even stop the subsidies—which I think would be even better—and redistribute the money in assistance to Quebeckers and Canadians? Our fellow citizens are having a hard time with the price of gas, but also with the constantly rising inflation and the impact of the price of gas on the economy overall.

173 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/17/22 12:05:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend. It is very important to understand that the recent hike in gas prices is partly a result of the cost of the carbon tax applied by the federal government, currently in Liberal hands. We have often said that it was time to reduce or defer the carbon tax for Canadian consumers. This tax is now almost 12¢ a litre for Canadian consumers—

71 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73