SoVote

May/17/22 12:18:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's question, but I would like to come back to what he said by way of introduction. He said that he has never seen the Bloc side with the Conservatives more. What I have seen over the past few weeks is my colleague from Timmins—James Bay refusing to allow the deputy minister of the environment to come back to talk to the committee about Bay du Nord. I cannot understand that. How can someone who claims to support the energy transition not want to question a deputy minister on a decision as appalling as Bay du Nord? Sometimes there is a lot of bluster in the House. However, when it comes time to take action, many people back down. We are not backing down on our core values just because we agreed with the Conservatives two or three times.

147 words

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

May/17/22 12:19:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, colleagues know that as a government we have invested literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, going into the billions, in support of a green transition. Historical amounts of funding that we have never witnessed before have been spent on that issue in the last six years alone. It is important to recognize that there are technologies out there that could provide great benefit to the world and to us here in Canada. The idea of carbon capture is very real. The member opposite and the Bloc seem to have an opinion, which is why I am asking this question. Does the Bloc party believe there is a need for any investment in the concept of carbon capture?

121 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/17/22 12:20:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague from Winnipeg North believes himself when he speaks. I really wonder about that. With regard to investments in the energy transition, let us not forget the much-touted $17‑billion green recovery plan. The government is investing $17 billion for its entire green recovery plan, but it is investing $30 billion in a single oil project, Trans Mountain. Your green recovery plan includes the hydrogen strategy. You want to make hydrogen with the oil and gas industry, with strategies—

91 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 12:21:07 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair. The hon. member for Jonquière.

20 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/17/22 12:21:15 p.m.
Watch

I understand, Madam Speaker. The government's plan includes Canada's hydrogen strategy. The government plans to invest a ton of money to produce hydrogen from natural gas, which is what the oil and gas sector is calling for. The only natural resources industry that captures carbon naturally is the forestry industry. In my region, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, this industry contributes more to the government than the government invests in all of Quebec.

77 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 12:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I heard him repeat that nonsense from Oil Change International about the NDP's motion. Has my colleague reviewed the figures that this organization provided to prove that the oil industry receives 14 times more subsidies than—

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 12:22:25 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Jonquière for a brief response.

11 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/17/22 12:22:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what Oil Change International says is that, year after year, the government, through EDC, invests a minimum of $14 billion in the oil and gas sector. What is worse, the Canadian government is not prepared to define what it considers a subsidy, so we will never have a real sense of what is going on. Given the $14 billion a year invested through EDC and all of the money spent on the Trans Mountain pipeline, I think I would stop talking. I would almost be ashamed if I were from the west.

96 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/17/22 12:23:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thought it was a nice day today when I got up, obviously because you are presiding over our proceedings. It was also because, when I looked at the NDP’s motion, I was pleased to see that it contained the Bloc Québécois’s platform. Therefore, this will not be complicated, we will be able to support the motion and everything will go smoothly. In fact, I am certain that the Conservatives and the Liberals will also support it. However, as we all know, this is not regular practice. The NDP, which has formed a coalition with the government, will probably vote in favour of a budget that is chock full of subsidies for the oil companies. It is a very important vote. It goes without saying that the motions moved on opposition days are important. The Bloc Québécois takes this seriously, but we know what the government does with our motions. For the government, Parliament appears to be optional. When we move motions about our nation, the French language, and so on, the government listens with one ear and then does whatever it wants. The real vote will therefore not necessarily be about today’s motion, but about the budget, which we know the NDP is going to support. If I were in their shoes, my beard would be much longer, because I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning to shave, a little like the member for Jonquière or the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. It goes even further than that. The motion asks that the government exclude oil and gas companies from the tax credit included in the budget that the NDP is voting for. As my colleague from Jonquière mentioned, Quebeckers and Canadians are being shortchanged by the budget, because they are paying twice. First, they are paying the price of gas at the pump, and we know that the oil industry is currently benefitting from geopolitical circumstances. Second, they are paying for the subsidies. Let us talk about our Conservative friends. I like them a lot when they say that they want a small government, that we need less government, more freedom, and so on. However, when it comes to the oil sector, we are dealing with oil Stalins and oil Mao Zedongs. All of a sudden, these people sitting here start telling us that government is important and that it should have a big role. Lenin, here, in Canada, is being asked to set aside $2.4 billion in subsidies for carbon sequestration this year, next year, the year after that, and for five years, along with another $1 billion or so for the five years after that. When all is said and done, we will have gone past the 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target, but that does not bother the Conservatives. It goes even further than that. For example, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan rose in the House to say, without a hint of embarrassment—which should not surprise us—that these are not even subsidies. We then had to rise to explain to him that, when an oil company invests $1 in the technology and the government reimburses 30¢, so that the oil company is paying only 70¢, that is pretty much a subsidy. The Conservatives are so embarrassed to admit it. These oil communists are so ashamed that they want to redefine the words in the dictionary and rewrite the economics textbooks. However, these are typical examples of subsidies. The last I heard, the Liberal government will be granting Trans Mountain a loan guarantee of over $10 billion. The Conservatives and the Liberals believe what they are saying. They are telling us that this assistance is not funded by taxpayer dollars because there is no public money involved. I am telling the Liberals and the Conservatives to forget the Fraser Institute and check Cambridge University’s catalogue. It contains a landmark book on megaprojects entitled Megaprojects and Risk, a scientific tome that very clearly explains that government guarantees for megaprojects are subsidies. The reason for this is that, when these companies ask for money at the bank, the bank does not risk getting involved in the project on the pretext that it is so flawed that it will cost too much, and the bank will then have to charge a prohibitive interest rate because there are too many risks involved. That is why the companies ask the government to guarantee their project. One of the main criteria for determining whether a project is flawed and too risky is cost overrun. Consider a project that is supposed to cost $4 or $5 billion, but that needs $12 billion a little later and ends up costing $22 billion in 2022, or even more later on. It has happened many times that projects guaranteed by the Crown ended up being paid for by taxpayers. That is Economics 101. Let us talk about inefficient subsidies. Since the Harper era, we have been told that inefficient subsidies will be eliminated, but we still do not know what inefficient subsidies are. I think the government looked at the problem, decided that all subsidies were inefficient and thought about what to do. It opted to not define the term “inefficient subsidy” for the Auditor General so that it could hide behind it. The government did not define it for the opposition or for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to buy time. For the first time this year, they are reducing inefficient subsidies. As everyone knows, they are reducing them by $9 million. As a percentage, $9 million is 0% of the budget. The government is going to pay out $2.4 billion, but it is reducing funding by $9 million. It is obvious that they are not taking this seriously. The Liberals tell us that they want to reduce all subsidies, but they are announcing new ones. They forgot to mention that they have been in power since 2015 and have done nothing. All of the subsidies are still there. We are faced with a government that does nothing, and we are faced with a band of oil Stalins who are happy that the government is continuing to invest. That is exactly what is happening. It is bad news on top of bad news. The oil companies come to committee and we ask them why they do not pay for their own carbon sequestration technology if it is so good. The oil companies say they have no money, they cannot afford it, they cannot do it. They tell us this straight-faced. The oil companies have good lobbyists. They must be highly trained because they do not even crack a smile. We have seen it and my colleague mentioned it, as well: quarterly profits of $3 billion for Suncor, $1.17 billion for Imperial and $1.1 billion for TC Energy. Where can I apply to get problems like that? There are seniors in my riding. The governments of Quebec and the provinces are waiting for transfers. Everyone would be happy with problems like that. Where can I apply? I would like that. My constituents would like that. The Liberals keep saying that they are investing in the transition, but we should look at their record. We should keep in mind that they were a majority government in 2015. They had four years to do something. Since they have been in power, there has been $4.5 billion for Trans Mountain and $2.6 billion for the Trans Mountain expansion, and, as I said, the spending is expected to reach $22 billion by the end of the year. Incentives for investment in the oil sector in 2018 amounted to $2.7 billion. Meanwhile, as I keep reminding the House, there is no money for health. They allocated $750 million to the emissions reduction fund, but that is not what they are hiding. Since they came to power, the Liberals have done worse than Stephen Harper. The financial support granted to the oil industry by Export Development Canada has reached $51.7 billion, an amount so large that it is hard to imagine. That amount is greater than the entire economy of El Salvador or Gabon, which is also an oil country. That amount is greater than the economy of Honduras this year and that of Macau. It is greater than the economy of Madagascar. The money given to oil companies is equivalent to countries' GDPs. It is equivalent to Lebanon's GDP last year. That is what the Liberals are, the great defenders of the transition. The motion contains nothing for our people. There is nothing for those who need support in the very short term. There is nothing for seniors. There is nothing for farmers. There is nothing for our businesses. On one side of the House, people are talking about the GST. Members opposite vote one way while saying the opposite. There is nothing for our people. I am pleased that we are studying this motion. I will be voting in favour of it because I agree with the substance, but I believe that we should take this opportunity to reflect on what is written, what we are voting for and also what we will be voting for when the time comes to vote on the budget.

1587 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 12:32:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague from Mirabel. It contrasts with what the Conservatives said earlier about the same motion. They denied that climate change is real. We lived it in British Columbia last year. We experienced the flooding. We experienced the heat—

51 words

Mr. Greg McLean

May/17/22 12:33:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the NDP member is saying something that never actually transpired in this House in this debate at all.

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 12:33:20 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

8 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/17/22 12:33:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives denied that climate change is real, and they continue to deny it. My colleague from Mirabel and the Bloc Québécois recognize that climate change is real. What can we say to members who systematically refuse to acknowledge reality? Canada and the entire planet are suffering the consequences of climate change.

58 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/17/22 12:33:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, climate change is real. It is a documented scientific fact. It is a measurable reality from which none of us will be safe if it gets any worse. That is why every person, member of Parliament, Canadian and citizen of the world must take action. That is why the Conservatives must acknowledge it. Once they have recognized it, they will have to act accordingly.

66 words

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

May/17/22 12:34:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc is treading a very dangerous line with its coalition partners in blue. They are at opposite ends. I point that out because, quite frankly, it is interesting. We have the Conservatives who say, “Build more. Do more for oil.” Then we have the Bloc, which seems to recognize that the oil industry and the energy industry as a whole have no place in Canada. Would the member not acknowledge that there is an energy sector that plays an important role in Canadian society in terms of jobs and so forth, and that within this budget is a green transition, which has historical amounts of money so that we can in fact be respectful and work towards a healthier planet?

125 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/17/22 12:35:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my grandfather had a fantastic saying: “Be careful not to squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube, because it is awfully hard to get it back in.” Once again, the hon. member for Winnipeg North is telling us that the future of the oil sector is growth and the extensive use of carbon capture. In his head, that is the solution. He is squeezing the tube of toothpaste so hard that there is toothpaste all over the walls and trying to make us believe he can get it back in the tube. I am happy not to be the one who has to clean his mirror.

110 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 12:36:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of the amendment to the motion I introduced earlier. The NDP refused to consider the amendment, which would allow us to improve the motion and review how subsidies are granted in Canada, to one industry rather than another, for example. Will he support the amendment?

69 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/17/22 12:36:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not read the motion because there was no French version available during the reading and I was unable to consult it. I see that my colleague is very sensitive to the matter of subsidies and that he spends a lot of time asking how they are calculated. He is wondering whether it is 14:1. One day, I would like him to tell me which he would prefer: 13:1, 12:1 or 11:1. How long will he continue to be an oil Mao Zedong and a communist when it comes to subsidizing the oil industry?

101 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/17/22 12:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is the first time today that I have had an opportunity to contribute to this debate, which is crucial for the Green Party of Canada. I totally agree with the hon. member for Mirabel and with the points he raised. I would like to say that only the Quebec government has remained true to the IPCC's principles and concerns. The Quebec government is the only government to have said no to fossil fuel energy and GNL Quebec. I will continue in English. It is only Quebec that has signed the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance globally. I am proud to be a Canadian, but the only part of this country that is trying to protect my future is in Quebec City.

125 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/17/22 12:38:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no one is perfect, but I am obviously very proud of the efforts made by Quebec and Quebeckers. I am even more proud that you, too, are a member from Quebec, Madam Speaker. When we achieve sovereignty, you will be with us in Quebec's National Assembly.

49 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73