SoVote

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

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

May/17/22 12:38:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Victoria and Timmins—James Bay for bringing forward this important motion today. I would like to start off by saying I will be sharing my time with the terrific member of Parliament for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. I appreciate the opportunity to rise on this motion. This is an important motion because of what Canadians are living through and what the planet is living through. I would like to start with my personal experience, because I come from the oil and gas sector. I was a refinery worker in Burnaby, B.C., at the Shellburn oil refinery, so I understand the important role oil and gas play in our country's history and the important role they continue to play in our economy. That being said, also as a British Columbian, I witnessed, as so many other people in British Columbia witnessed last year, the direct and tragic impacts of climate change. We are not talking about years from now; we are talking about a real danger that is manifesting itself now, today. Last summer in my riding and across the Lower Mainland, for the first time ever, we had the heat dome that impacted our communities; 600 British Columbians died in that terrible wave of heat. These were seniors, people with disabilities and lower-income people who were in apartments, often with no access to air conditioning. As the heat rose, so did the death toll. Over the course of days, we heard ambulances constantly, throughout our city. In talking with ambulance technicians and paramedics, we know that they were simply overwhelmed by the death toll as the heat dome had a greater and greater impact. People died in their apartments; people died in their beds; people died struggling for air. This heat dome had a catastrophic impact in the Lower Mainland. Firefighters were brought in because the paramedics were overwhelmed. In both Burnaby and New Westminster, firefighters do an extraordinary job of providing a remarkable service to people in our communities, and they said that if the heat dome had continued for another day or two, the entire emergency response services simply would have been overwhelmed and would have collapsed. That is how bad it was. We lived through that heat dome, and there is anticipation that it is going to happen again this summer. Climate change is not something we can deny; climate change is not something we can simply set aside. Climate change is real, and it is killing people now in this country, let alone when we talk about around the world and the impacts of climate change. Coming right back to Canada, there is an impact on Canadians that is real and profound. Following the heat dome, we also lived through a number of other catastrophic climate events, including atmospheric rivers that flooded massive parts of the Lower Mainland, as we well know, and high winds, as well. Terms like “heat domes” and “atmospheric rivers” were unknown to us prior to the climate crisis, but those impacts are felt now and they are felt profoundly. We are no longer talking about something of which the impacts will be felt maybe in 10 or 20 years. Maybe that was an excuse for inaction, both from previous Conservative governments and the current Liberal government, but there is no excuse now. The impacts are real, and we are feeling them now. The impacts are on lives. The impacts are on crumbling infrastructure. The impacts are on our economy, and those impacts are growing. There were over $5 billion in economic costs last year alone, and that number will continue to rise, so when we look at the motion today and the reality of today, with climate change having a profound impact right now and killing Canadians right now, what is the government's response? The response of the government has been to increase oil and gas subsidies to the tune of $8.6 billion. It does not even make sense, when we know the impact of climate change, to have a government that says this is business as usual and it is going to increase those subsidies. I do not know what is worse, the climate denial of the Conservatives or the complete climate inaction of the Liberals. Both are bad, and both have had a profound impact. The government's refusal to act, either because it is in denial or because it simply does not want to act, has a profound impact on our country. We talk about a situation in which there are massive subsidies to the industry. At the same time as there are massive subsidies to the industry, the kinds of actions that would help us contend with the climate crisis are not being taken. This is probably the key aspect of the motion that is before us today, that Canada spends 14 times more on financial support to the fossil fuel sector than it does for renewable energy. Other countries around the world are making that transition now. As I have seen in the past as an energy worker, they are putting into place just transition strategies so that energy workers are trained for the clean energy jobs of tomorrow. That is not happening in Canada because of the massive subsidies going to the oil and gas sector, to the detriment of everything else. I have met with companies that are innovating in clean energy and workers who want to go into clean energy, and the big obstacle in Canada is that all of these sectors are starved for funding because 14 times more is going to oil and gas CEOs than is going to the clean energy sector. Companies have to move out of Canada; they are simply not getting the financing, because the current government, like the previous government, refuses to put just transition in place and refuses to adequately finance clean energy and the clean energy sector. Therefore, we have a situation in which massive amounts of money, a firehose of money, $8.6 billion last year alone, are trained on oil and gas CEOs while the clean energy sector is literally starving for funds in the midst of a climate crisis that is killing Canadians, including my constituents. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Let us add another element. At the same time as we are seeing these massive subsidies being given to the oil and gas sector and record levels of profit, we see the gouging of Canadians at the pump. We have seen this before. Every time there is an international crisis in the oil and gas sector, curiously all the prices rise. As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out numerous times, in numerous credible and well-documented studies, what we see when there is an international crisis is that the price goes up at the pump even when the price per barrel has remained stable on old stock. Then, when the crisis is over, the prices come down and the new stock has a reduced barrel price, we still see the high level of gas prices and millions of dollars taken out of the pockets of Canadian consumers each and every year by gas price gouging. The NDP has spoken to this. The member for Windsor West has proposed a gas prices review board. There are numerous ways we can tackle this, but both the previous Conservative and current Liberal governments absolutely refuse to defend consumers against this gas price gouging that takes place. All of these elements are in the motion today. What we are suggesting is that we end the subsidies. We have to provide supports for Canadians struggling with the high cost of living, including my constituents, and we need to put into place investments in renewable energy. We need to stop subsidizing the oil sector. We need to implement and invest in clean energy. Canada lags far behind other countries in this respect. We need to help Canadians who are fighting unjustified price hikes in a sector that is used to doing whatever it wants. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives really want to defend Canadian consumers. That is why it is important to adopt this motion. I support it fully and I ask that all members of the House vote in favour of it. It is a major shift that will help consumers and our planet.

1412 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 12:48:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to provide his thoughts on something Andrew Weaver said. We hear a lot about what the government's performance has been like. Andrew Weaver, the former leader of the Green Party in B.C., commented on the 2021 platform that the Liberals put forward to Canadians: “I am a climate scientist and a parent, and I have spent my life working on climate science policy and solutions. The science is clear. Urgent action is required to mitigate the worst aspects of the climate crisis and to get to net-zero emissions by 2050. The Liberal Party of Canada's climate plan is both bold and thoughtful. It is the only credible science-aligned climate plan put forward by any political party at the federal level to date.” We, as a government, have invested historic highs. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into multiple billions of dollars, into a just green transition. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on how important it was that the Government of Canada invested those billions of dollars for a green transition.

190 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/17/22 12:49:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. I am so pleased that the member asked the question. It is exactly the difference between having a piece of paper that says good things and actually doing what is required. It is the action, not the words. It is not about the Liberals having a great platform; it is about the reality. If Mr. Weaver had been told that after the election the Liberals would jack up those oil and gas subsidies and starve the clean energy sector to death, giving 14 times more to oil and gas than to clean energy, Mr. Weaver would not have been on that podium at that event. It is not the words, but the action that counts, and we need action now because the planet is burning.

132 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 12:50:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the subsidies given to the oil and gas sector, and then he talked about the investments the government makes, including in dental care, which his party is taking a grand foray saying that it is responsible for in a $52-billion deficit that the government is foisting on Canadians and that our children are going to have to pay for. I would like the member to tell this House what the difference in his mind is between a subsidy and an investment and whether they are fungible in some respects. Perhaps he could reconsider the amendment to the motion that I put on the table and say that maybe we need to compare these things so that there is no more language that muddles the two in this respect.

138 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/17/22 12:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us talk about subsidies. Let us talk about TMX. The private sector was walking away from it, but the Liberals, with the support of the Conservatives, said that in 24 hours they would come up with $4.5 billion to buy the pipeline. It turns out, as the PBO said, that it was $1 billion more than it was even worth. Subsequent to that, we have seen tens of billions of dollars poured into TMX, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer again said this is simply not a project that will ever return on investment the money that has been poured in from the public sector. Now we have a loan guarantee of an additional $10 billion, so over $30 billion has been poured into TMX, which will never return that money to taxpayers. Why do the Conservatives not speak out against that abuse of public funds?

149 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/17/22 12:52:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. I really feel for the people of British Columbia who have had to deal with the terrible, direct effects of climate change. The member says he wants to go the extra mile to protect our environment, so how can he support a budget and a government that continue to perpetuate greenwashing, trying to convince us that “environment” and “Bay du Nord” go hand in hand and that “green oil” exists? This is brainwashing, and it is wrong. If my colleague really wants to do something for the environment, perhaps his party should stop supporting the budget. I marched with Mothers Step In on Mother's Day this year. They are very disappointed with the Conservatives for denying climate change, with the Liberals for not doing enough and with the party supporting it.

155 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/17/22 12:53:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is precisely the point. We have forced the government to introduce a just transition bill. We are an opposition party, but we are forcing the government to act. That is why we have brought forward this motion today, to force the government to act. That is our role in this Parliament.

54 words

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

May/17/22 12:54:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate our NDP motion to call on the Liberal government once again to end subsidies to its buddies in big oil. The best time to do this was years ago. The second best time to do it is today. Time is running out, yet the Liberals continue to hold on to the strange idea that we are just another couple of billion dollars to big oil away from solving the climate crisis. It is wrong, and they know it is wrong, but they continue to maintain this fallacy and hope no one will notice that they are doing the opposite of what they are saying. They may say they care about reversing catastrophic climate change, but they do not get to say they care while propping up the same companies that are wrecking our environment with our tax dollars to fund their bonuses. They do not get to say they care when Cenovus recently announced its best first-quarter profit ever, raking in almost a billion more than it did one year ago, or Imperial Oil tripling its 2021 earnings, or Suncor quadrupling its. These companies are not self-made. They are doing it with the government's help and with our tax dollars. Meanwhile, it is workers, indigenous peoples, young people and northerners who are paying the price in every way while the government sits back. These are the people who are getting ripped off at the pump and may no longer be able to even afford to drive to their jobs, or are struggling to pay rent or pay for groceries, people who are consistently left behind by a government that likes to cosplay as the plucky hero saving the environment. It is not heroic to give billions to big oil. It is not brave. It is not challenging the status quo. It is the status quo, and it is going to get our planet destroyed. It is funny. The government regularly talks about listening to science, but it rarely does so when it comes to climate change. The IPCC has been clear on the need to end oil subsidies, yet the government pretends that this is not the case. The IPCC has said that countries like Canada need to increase investments in renewables by at least a factor of three to meet our climate goals, yet the government still has not done this. It goes without saying that I would never accuse members of the government of misleading the House or even Canadians while in the chamber, but it does beg the question, what would we call a government that says it is tackling climate change by giving billions to big oil? What do we call a government that presents itself as an environmental champion on the international stage and to the public while consistently missing every target it has ever set? I will leave that question to Canadians. The facts are clear. Canada has the worst record in the G20, handing out 14 times more financing to the oil and gas sector than to renewables. It is no surprise that big oil has always had the ear of the government, which I guess is easy to do when the government has had 6,800 recorded meetings with big oil. It has worked, having successfully lobbied the Liberals for a $2.6-billion tax credit for unproven carbon capture technologies that allow them to justify increased production and higher emissions. In total, the government gave $8.6 billion last year to oil companies already raking in record profits. It is always the same with the government: help for those at the top and nice words for everyone else. Those words have been nice. In 2019, we heard about the just transition act. The government failed to deliver, and the environment commissioner recently had to call it out over its lack of a plan to support workers and communities through the transition to a low-carbon economy. At COP26 in November, we heard nice words again from the government, to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector. We heard nice words in the mandate letters for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources. Every single one had nice words about phasing out public subsidies for big oil, but recent testimony from Finance and ECCC officials at the environment committee showed that it is not much more than nice words. Let us be clear. Nice words do not help people afford their basic needs. Nice words will not stop the climate catastrophe. My home is here in northern Manitoba, where long drives between communities are a daily reality of life. People here in Thompson regularly drive eight hours to our capital, Winnipeg, to pick up supplies and things they need. For many surrounding communities, Thompson is where many people come in for health care, to access other services, to pick up groceries and to shop for necessities. This morning, the cost of gas here in Thompson was $1.85; in Cross Lake, $1.89; in Lynn Lake, $2; in Churchill, $2.56. How are people expected to have money left over for anything else when gassing up costs this much? Where do these people turn? Who is standing up for them? A better way does exist. It is not too late for the government to reverse course from the path toward climate disaster it has put us on. It starts with ending subsidies to big oil and reinvesting that money toward both renewable energy and help for Canadians struggling with the cost of living. This is what our motion calls for today. There is no reason the Liberals cannot start by eliminating tax credits for oil and gas exploration and development immediately. This would bring in almost $10 billion in the next four years. We ought to include profitable oil and gas companies in the Canada recovery dividend to tax their excess profits and redistribute that money to help Canadians struggling to get by. We must suspend the GST on residential energy bills, double the GST tax credit and increase the Canada child benefit for all recipients now. I urge this House to support our motion, but there is so much we need to be doing. We must go further. We must do more. My other question is, why have we not activated all the tools at our disposal, like our Crown corporations, and used public ownership in the fight against climate change? Why have we not made the types of investments necessary to support communities in need to fight back? Indigenous peoples and northerners are already paying the price for climate change. How many catastrophic floods or fires before we take it seriously? How many evacuated communities, destroyed homes and livelihoods gone before we finally do what we need to do to save people, communities and our planet? It seems that every year somewhere in the country there are record temperatures, floods or forest fires. Every evacuation, every destroyed community is a proverbial canary in the coal mine of climate change. Communities are crying out as they are being destroyed by our indifference. The worst part is that as long as we continue to give billions of dollars to big oil, we are subsidizing our own destruction. Every climate disaster, flood or fire is on our hands. We are doing this. Today we are witnessing here in our part of the country the devastating flooding in Peguis First Nation, a community to which the current government and governments before it promised they would fund flood mitigation efforts, a promise unmet. Now, Peguis is dealing with the catastrophic impacts: a total evacuation of the community of over 1,870 members, and more than 700 homes impacted. We are talking about a community that has flooded five times in the last 16 years. It knows how to deal with floods, but it is getting worse. The feds and the province may show up with sandbags, but when it comes to long-term support, the federal government has been nowhere to be seen. When asked about this by the CBC, the federal government refused to commit to long-term supports, leaving communities like Peguis in the lurch. Why? Imagine if there was a place for communities like Peguis to turn to in order to get the funding they need for the infrastructure they know they need that would help with climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. My bill, Bill C-245, an act to amend the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, is motivated by the communities in my riding and across the country that have nowhere to turn to get the support they need to survive climate change. This is about standing with communities. It is ultimately about saving lives. If this House is truly serious about supporting indigenous and northern communities, if we are truly serious about taking on catastrophic climate change, I invite all members to stand with communities like the ones I represent by supporting this bill when the time comes. For too long, this House, the government, has shown its loyalty to those at the top, those who need the least amount of help. It is time this House, the government, stood with everyone else. It is time the government stopped being part of the problem and started being part of the solution. It is not too late, but soon it will be. Let us get to work now.

1596 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 1:03:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate thus far I have often made reference to the hundreds of millions of dollars invested by this government into the green transition. The member made reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has done some fantastic work. One of the things is in the community of Brampton, for example, where a considerable amount of money is flowing through the Infrastructure Bank that will enable electric buses to that municipality, and there will be more projects toward a green transition over the next number of years. Does the New Democratic Party support the efforts of the Canada Infrastructure Bank?

103 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/17/22 1:04:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is pretty rich to hear the Liberals defending the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Not one of its projects has seen completion. It is sitting on $35 billion and has been around for over five years now. There is not much to point to, except for projects that it is interested in or is approving. As I expect my colleague to know, the reality is that first nations and northern communities have been consistently left out from many pockets of infrastructure funding, including at the Infrastructure Bank, and they are paying the highest cost of climate change. We can look at Peguis First Nation. It knows what it needs and it has been clear with the federal government, but the federal government is nowhere to be seen when it comes to long-term mitigation efforts. This is not acceptable. The Infrastructure Bank ought to be part of the solution, and the federal government needs to step up with some sense of urgency to support Peguis and first nations and northern communities that are already paying the price of climate change.

181 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

May/17/22 1:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member. We are hearing the NDP speak out of both sides of its mouth. The member, maybe in a moment of honesty, said she is concerned about high gas prices. This morning, I asked the member for Timmins—James Bay about gas after he said we cannot have affordable gas prices, and he got up and he said that was wrong—

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 1:06:24 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. member for a point of order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

20 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 1:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask the member to show some dignity and not lie in the House. I did not say—

21 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 1:06:32 p.m.
Watch

We do not use such words in the House of Commons. The hon. member is asking a question and referring to an earlier question in the debate. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

34 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/17/22 1:06:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is what qualifies as not being honest in the House, apparently. One moment the member says that we cannot have affordable, cheap gasoline, and when he is called on it, he says that he did not say that. In fact, it is exactly what the NDP is saying. What is the NDP's position? Does the NDP want high gasoline prices, which means Canadians are going to pay, or does it want gasoline prices to come down so that Canadians get a break and we have affordable prices?

91 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73