44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:00:13 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:02:09 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:02:24 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:06:01 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Jonquière.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:06:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the mischievous member for Mirabel.
What to say about this motion?
First, I will tell my NDP colleagues that the Bloc Québécois will support their motion, since putting an end to subsidies for fossil fuels is something we have long defended.
When it comes to the issue of oil and gas in Canada, it seems to me that many stakeholders become irrational, so irrational that it feels like this has to do with culture or identity. I do not want to play the “us and them” game, but everyone is familiar with the two solitudes. Many Canadians identify with the gas and oil industry. I could compare that with guns, in the United States, which I see as a symbol of a certain right-wing identity. In Canada, oil is a symbol of a certain Canadian identity. Consider what happened in the last Parliament, and I will not hide the fact that I was blown away. A motion moved by the Conservatives stated that oil is irreplaceable and that we should set aside a day to celebrate it.
The first time I sat in the House and heard some of my colleagues shouting “build a pipeline”, I was taken aback. As a Quebecker, I wondered whether I should be shouting “build hydro towers”. Really, I was not sure what to do. I will go further. On many of my Conservative colleagues’ phones and even on their pins, I see the famous slogan “I love oil and gas”. On my computer, I have a Quebec flag. I admit that I do not feel as invested in the gas and oil sector.
More recently, in March if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Abbotsford said during an opposition day that we should cut gas taxes by 5%. I think that he must be biting his tongue today, since it really is not a good idea to cut taxes by 5% when oil companies are making record profits, as I will show later. However, I do not blame the Conservatives, because at least they are doing it openly. When I hear a Conservative give a speech on the oil and gas sector, I know what to expect.
It is a little more difficult with the Liberals, who keep promising an energy transition, who keep promising to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but then do the exact opposite. We only have to look at Bay du Nord.
At the Montreal Climate Summit, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said, “I am an activist and an environmentalist. . . . I must represent all Canadians and I have to accept that I won't be able to win all my battles... I know you are disappointed with the Bay du Nord decision”. I wondered why he said that he represented all Canadians. Does that mean that all Canadians disagree that the oil and gas sector poses an environmental problem?
From reading his quote, I get the impression he is making a decision that goes against his beliefs. I am not questioning the environment minister’s beliefs: he has shown that he has a strong environmental ethic. However, in his opinion, what makes sense for Canadians is to accept oil and gas projects. This is what makes me say that talking about the oil and gas industry in Canada is something almost irrational that can paralyze our political process.
We in the Bloc Québécois are somewhat less affected, I admit. Until very recently, we could count on the NDP. However, with the happy and consummated marriage between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the New Democrats will be obliged, and my friend Charlie will like what I say next, even if they condemn the $2.6 billion—
658 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot name his colleagues in the House.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:11:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague personally called me out, and I do not think he is allowed to do so. If he wants to attack the New Democratic Party for doing its work in general, he can, but he is not supposed to use my name. I am more than proud—
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:11:26 p.m.
- Watch
The point is well taken.
I just reminded the hon. member for Jonquière that he cannot name his colleagues in the House.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:11:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague was focused on his speech. People were shouting at him while he was speaking, which is why he simply responded without thinking—
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
