SoVote

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

May/17/22 3:13:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when we left off for question period, I was talking about how Canada is uniquely positioned to become a renewable energy superpower. During the natural resources committee's study on critical minerals, we learned that Canada is the only nation in the western hemisphere with all of the minerals and metals needed to produce the advanced batteries, electric motors and wind turbine generators that will be needed in the low-carbon economy. The International Energy Agency's net-zero energy scenario estimates that the global value for select critical minerals will grow substantially over the next two decades, reaching today's level for coal market value of about $400 billion U.S. by 2040. The opportunity is there for Canada to both reach net zero and prosper, but we cannot continue down the path that Liberal and Conservative governments have chosen when it comes to spending money on the oil and gas sector. Canada currently spends more per capita on those subsidies than any other developed country. We cannot keep paying companies to clean up their own pollution. New Democrats know that public funds are best spent supporting the transition to renewable energy and helping Canadians struggling with the high cost of living, rather than on profitable oil and gas companies. Instead of spending billions on new oil pipelines, we should be building hydrogen infrastructure for heavy transportation hubs, stronger provincial interties to distribute clean electricity across Canada, and electric vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing, and we should be training and employing workers now working in the oil and gas sector in these new opportunities. They are opportunities that will last into the future. This is where the puck is going. We need to stop providing those subsidies to oil and gas companies, which delay climate action, and instead spend that money on climate action. Increasingly, we need to spend money on climate adaptation, since the effects of global warming are locked in. We have to talk about the cost of climate inaction, and that cost is rising every year. Right now, Canadian governments, businesses and citizens spend more than $5 billion annually to fix the destruction caused by increased fires and floods. That is predicted to rise to over $40 billion by 2050. At the moment, the federal government puts up just over $300 million of that cost. It is past time that we faced up to the rising costs of climate change. We must realign the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund to spend more on adaptation, so that we protect communities from disaster rather than rebuild them after the fact. Last year, British Columbia communities such as Lytton, Princeton, Merritt and many more, were badly impacted by fire and floods. Small communities such as these do not have the monetary resources to rebuild under present funding formulas. We must have a clear strategy for the future that faces the facts of climate change, both limiting the extent of future changes and dealing with the changes that have already taken place. Canada's future is very bright, but first we must invest in that future, not in the past.

521 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

May/17/22 3:17:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have always heard the NDP picking up for unionized workers and picking up for workers in general, but I heard the member come down hard on the oil industry. Most of those workers are union-paying members. Is he saying to put them out of work and leave them without jobs?

54 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/17/22 3:18:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is, of course, “no”. We do not want to put oil and gas workers out of work. The oil and gas industry has been very good to Canada over the past decades. The member for Calgary Centre recounted in great detail how much benefit it has provided Canadians and Canadian workers. However, that is not where we are going. What I am saying is we have to make sure that those workers who have good union jobs now will have good union jobs in the future, but those jobs are disappearing, whether they like it or not. A lot of those workers are rightly concerned about what they see. We have to invest in that future for them and their families.

132 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 3:19:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, has my hon. colleague, who gave a good speech, actually read the preamble to this motion, which talks about the increasing price of gas? In his speech, he talked about the move toward renewable energies as replacing fossil fuels. There is a dichotomy there. I wonder if he has thought about it, because the whole concept of renewable energies and making gas more expensive is so that renewable energies do not look as mountingly expensive in comparison. Has he thought at all about what the actual outcome is here for Canadian consumers in the critical minerals chain he is discussing?

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/17/22 3:19:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the price of gas is at the top of a lot of Canadians' minds right now. It has gone up a tremendous amount. It has probably gone up $1 a litre since the war in Ukraine has changed the world markets. What I am looking for is a future that we are moving toward and planning for, which will create an energy market that is not so sensitive to world events. I am looking for an energy future where Canada is creating its own energy and not subject to world prices for oil. The Conservatives are always talking about using Canadian oil to fuel Canada, but I can bet that if we had that system right now, Canadian oil companies would not want the Conservatives to say that we will cut the price of oil in half because we control oil in Canada. We need a system that is good for the planet and for consumers, and we have to plan for that.

166 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/17/22 3:21:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the thing that stands out to me the most is this $2.6-billion subsidy for carbon capture and storage that is in the most recent budget. It stands out as egregious, not only because this technology has yet to prove feasible at scale, but also because these billions of dollars are going to some of the largest companies in the world, which are making record profits. Could my colleague comment a bit on where he would rather see that $2.6 billion go in the budget, especially in terms of helping Canadians transition to lower-carbon, more affordable lifestyles?

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/17/22 3:21:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I outlined some of that in my speech. I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for allowing me to go on. We need to spend those monies on reaching this future with a clean economy. I mentioned interprovincial interties in electrical redistribution. That would help us get clean electricity across the country and reduce our emissions tremendously, but it costs a couple of billion dollars for each intertie. Those are the kinds of things we have to be looking at, instead of funding the oil and gas industry, which is very profitable.

99 words

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

May/17/22 3:22:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London West. I have had the opportunity to emphasize a few points already today. They are important points that we need to understand and have an appreciation for. I have talked about the differences between political entities inside the chamber. We have some in the chamber, in some political parties, who will say we are not doing enough to support the energy industry, and then we have others who say we are doing too much to support the energy industry. As a political party and, more importantly, as a government, we have recognized the true value for all of Canada. We say that, in fact, we can be responsible for environmental stewardship while, at the same time, respecting the energy industry. We have seen a number of different policies, both through legislation and budgetary measures, that demonstrate that it is doable. I made reference to one of the questions. We talk a lot about the environment, as well we should. I am going to repeat a quote from earlier today. It was from the former leader of the Green Party in British Columbia, Andrew Weaver. This was based on election platforms. I thought it was important to provide this quote and a little balance to it. Andrew Weaver supported the NDP when it was in a minority situation in the province of Manitoba. He said, “I'm a climate scientist and a parent, and I've 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.” He continued, “It includes a world-leading price on carbon pollution, permanent public transit funding, rapid zero emissions vehicle deployment, which is even stronger policy than the one we developed here in B.C. as part of Clean B.C., the phasing out of coal by 2030, and much, much more. This is a plan that reflects the urgency and scale of the crisis. I am extremely impressed at how ambitious the Liberal Party of Canada's climate plan is, and I am confident that this is the right path for Canada.” This was what the former leader of the Green Party in British Columbia had to say. I made reference to the fact that over the last six or seven years, we have seen historical amounts of money invested in a green transition. We are talking not only about hundreds of millions of dollars, but we are going into multiple billions of dollars. It is estimated to be as high as just under $100 billion. No government in the history of Canada has ever provided as much money towards a green transition. We have seen it done, both directly and indirectly. Money speaks volumes. At the end of the day, ours is a government that understands the importance of having a balance. When we talk about zero emissions and achieving that goal by 2050, we have implemented legislation that has been put in place to ensure that we stay on target, even if 20 years from now we are not in government. The government in 20 years from now will have that obligation. At the end of the day, it is not only legislation. There are budgetary measures too. There are things that have been put in place that consumers in Canada can really relate to, such as the greener homes grant. It is a great deal of money that is enabling literally thousands of people across Canada to access a grant that will enable them to improve their home, to build and to renovate. Not only is that better for our environment, but it will also reduce the energy bills of our constituents who take advantage of that grant, while improving the communities where those homes are located. It improves the quality of Canada's overall housing stock. That is one program I have talked about, encouraged and promoted. We can talk about the two billion trees over 10 years. That is an incredible commitment. Averaged out, that is about half million trees every day for 10 years. I know the opposition will say that they are not seeing half a million trees every day today, and that is true. That is because we cannot just take a seed and convert it into a two-year-old seedling or six-month-old seedling and plant it. It takes time. We will see a much larger percentage of those two billion trees in the latter of those 10 years, rather than at the beginning. The point is, averaged out, how do we conceptualize two billion trees in a 10-year period of time. I would suggest to look at as half million trees a day. We have seen how well that policy has been received. We talk about the banning of plastics, which is another regulation moved by the government to ban single-use plastics. Once again, that is something that is very popular. It is being put into place, and it will make a difference. Going back to consumers, we have a budget that says we want to encourage members and the public to purchase and acquire electric vehicles to the point where we have provided financial incentives to do so. Some other provinces, and the first that comes to my mind is the province of Quebec, have a financial incentive to purchase an electric vehicle. I would love to see the province of Manitoba also participate in that kind of program. It did a number of years ago. These types of programs make a difference. Earlier today I asked a question of one of my Conservative friends because many of them within the Conservative Party still have that climate denial. They do no understand and appreciate climate change. I pointed something out during a question to a member opposite because he had mentioned getting into a truck and taking trips in rural Alberta. I said that speaking of trucks, I had talking to workers at a Ford dealership, and they were saying that for the electric version of the Ford F-150— An hon. member: It takes two years. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it takes more than two years. Some are looking at four years, likely five years, and that was a couple months ago. It might have even been extended by now. The reason I used that example was to share with my Conservative friends that many people within their constituencies have recognized the true value of electronic vehicles.

1147 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

May/17/22 3:33:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the important work that our energy sector truly does, but one critical question, which is important for the House to know about, is the reality facing indigenous communities in the resource areas. What I have heard, speaking with indigenous leadership, is the fact that these companies are often predatory in their work with indigenous communities. Can the member explain how we can ensure that indigenous communities will truly see a diversified economy where they do not have to rely on selling their resources back for the penny just to go backwards?

101 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/22 3:33:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before question period, I was having a conversation with the Minister of the Environment, and we were talking about the green transition. We were speaking about how, in the province of Alberta, through renewable energy and job creation, somewhere in the neighbourhood of several thousands of jobs, just in that one province, have been created. I think we underestimate, as the Minister of the Environment would no doubt tell us, those nations, countries, provinces and provincial governments that get engaged on the whole concept of green technology and what we can do as provincial or federal entities to encourage and promote it. Those are good jobs for the future, and thousands of jobs are being generated because of some of the budgetary measures we have put in this last budget, specifically, but others also.

136 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 3:34:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on the other side of the House, but I want to ask him about this, because he drifted away from the substance of this motion when he started talking about trees. Three years ago, his government committed to planting two billion trees in 10 years. That is about 200 million a year. Three years later, it is planning to plant the first 30 million, because it actually did not figure out the execution. Much like everything in its policies, it likes announcing things, but it does not actually know how to deliver. This kind of thing spins around in their heads for three years, and then they think, “Oh, yeah, we should probably start moving on that.” Has he thought about the execution of the policies he is talking about concerning an actual energy transition?

151 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/22 3:35:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, we have actually given a great deal of thought to it. On the issue of the trees, I look forward to eight years from now, when the member on that side of the bench will be able to ask questions, and we will be able to provide the answers to those questions and the success of planting those two billion trees. In time, we will see that we will achieve the two billion, but we have to emphasize that we have to gather the seeds and the different types of seeds. It takes a while for those seeds to become seedlings and to put them into the ground. We cannot just click our heels and wish them into existence. There is a process, and we in government will achieve that process. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

139 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 3:36:12 p.m.
Watch

Order. There are a lot of reactions happening, and I would just ask members, if they want to react loudly, to maybe leave the chamber and then come back in when they have composed themselves. The hon. member for Mirabel.

40 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/17/22 3:36:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is rare to see the member for Winnipeg North so out of sorts. He was so out of sorts that he had to read notes, because his government has forced him to say that the oil subsidies are investments in the environment. In committee, the oil companies told us that they needed public funding because they do not have the means to pay for their own investments. Does the member for Winnipeg North agree with the oil companies' assertion that they are too poor to make their own investments and they need money? In my opinion, that money should be invested in health and in seniors.

109 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/22 3:37:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are many different industries in which the Government of Canada invests. We want to see the advancement of technologies that are going to create the good, solid middle-class jobs going into the future. Whether it is jobs through green transition or jobs—

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 3:37:31 p.m.
Watch

Order. Is there a problem with the interpretation? Mr. Jean‑Denis Garon: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise the fact that my colleague is not answering the question. He spouted nonsense. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Since that is not a point of order I would ask the members to listen to the response. The hon. parliamentary secretary has time for a brief response.

68 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/22 3:37:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the point is that we have a government that is prepared to invest in technology, to work with both private and public sectors, and to ensure that we can create the types of jobs Canadians want to see for the future. Green transition is of critical importance. We say that, and we believe in it, and that is why we have invested literally hundreds of millions, going into the billions, of dollars. It is because that is where the future jobs, in good part, are going to be.

90 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga (London West, Lib.)

May/17/22 3:38:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in today's debate— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

19 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 3:38:47 p.m.
Watch

There is an individual whom I have recognized and who has the floor, yet we still have other individuals who wish to have conversations. I would ask them to take those conversations out of the chamber, or if they are just reacting, maybe they would like to leave and come back when they have composed themselves. The hon. member for London West.

62 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

May/17/22 3:39:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that my colleagues are so excited to see me rising in the House. I will start again. I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate. Our government fully understands the importance of phasing out or rationalizing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. We take Canada's G20 commitment to do so very seriously. More importantly, we have already made important progress toward achieving this goal. This includes action we have taken to phase out or rationalize tax measures providing preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel sector. Taking into account the phasing out of flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities in 2023, which was just announced in budget 2022, nine inefficient fossil fuel subsidies will have been phased out or rationalized by this government. This includes the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, announced in budget 2007 and completed in 2015; the reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in the conventional oil and gas sector, announced in 2011 and completed in 2016; the phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investment in the oil and gas and mining sectors, announced in 2012 and completed in 2017; the reduction in the deduction rate for pre-production intangible mine development expenses to align with the rate for the oil and gas sector, announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2018; the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2021; allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025, announced in 2016; the rationalization of the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling, announced in 2017 and completed in 2021; and the phase-out of the tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favourably treated exploration expenses, announced in 2017 and completed in 2020. To support its efforts to phase out or rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, Canada committed to undergo a peer review of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the G20 process. Once the process is completed, the results will be communicated in a very transparent and timely manner. Canada will continue to review its measures that could be considered inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, with a view to reforming them as necessary. We have been taking effective action to help Canadians with the high cost of living, and we continue to support Canadians struggling with the high cost of living, as called for in today's motion. Our government understands that Canadians are being hit by rising prices. We are also taking effective action to meaningfully support them so they can deal with this challenge. For example, we are investing in cutting taxes for the middle class while raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We continue to increase support for families and low-income workers through programs such as the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit. Thanks to the CCB, nine out of 10 Canadian families have more money to help them with the cost of caring for their children than they did with previous benefits. Our expanded Canada workers benefit will support an estimated one million additional Canadians, which could mean $1,000 more per year for a full-time minimum-wage worker. Our financial support for Canadians does not stop there. In budget 2021, our government laid out an ambitious plan to provide Canadian parents with an average of $10-a-day regulated child care spaces for children under six years old. In less than one year, we have reached agreements with all provinces and territories. This means that, by the end of this year, families across Canada will have seen their child care fees reduced by an average of 50%, which is an average of $6,000 in savings per child for families in British Columbia and Ontario. These are not savings that will appear in five or 10 years; these are savings that will occur by the end of December. By 2025-26, our plan will mean an average child care fee of $10 a day for all regulated child care spaces across Canada, meaning thousands of dollars in savings for families across Canada. To support vulnerable Canadians at the other end of the demographic spectrum, we have also increased the guaranteed income supplement to top up the benefit for low-income single seniors and enhanced the GIS earnings exemption. We are also increasing old age security for Canadians aged 75 and older in July of this year. This 10% increase would provide about $800 in additional benefits to full pensioners over the first year. About 3.3 million seniors would benefit from this and no action will be required on their part. They would automatically receive the payment if they are eligible. This is the first permanent increase of old age security pensions since 1973, other than just adjustments due to inflation. To protect Canadians from the impact of inflation, the government indexes the Canada child benefit to inflation, as well as the Canada pension plan, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, the goods and services tax credit and other benefits for the most vulnerable people. To further help make life more affordable for Canadians, we have also increased the basic personal amount, BPA, that Canadians can earn before paying any federal income tax. To ensure this support is targeted to the middle class, the benefits of the increased BPA are phased out for high-income taxpayers. When this measure is fully implemented next year, single individuals will pay $300 less in tax each year and families will pay $600 less. Our government is also returning the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system to their province or territory of origin, with most of these proceeds going to families in those jurisdictions. In fact, in jurisdictions that do not have their own pricing system consistent with the federal benchmark criteria, which is to say Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, approximately 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge are being returned to the residents of these provinces through climate action incentive payments. Between 2022 and 2023, a family of four would receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, families in rural and small communities are eligible to receive an extra 10%. The reality is that, as a result of these CAI payments, most households are getting back more than they paid in increased costs they faced from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. What is more, the remaining fuel charge proceeds are being used to support small businesses, farmers, indigenous communities and other organizations. Going forward, the federal carbon price will continue to be revenue-neutral for the Government of Canada. At the same time, we are also ensuring that taxes are appropriate and fair. Our government knows that those who can afford to buy expensive cars, planes and boats can also afford to pay a bit more, and Canadians agree. Our government campaigned on this promise in 2019 and 2021 and was elected to enact this. To that end, we are also following through on our commitment to introduce a tax on the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail sale price of over $100,000 and on new boats over $250,000. The revenues raised by this tax can be used to offset costs for Canadians and invest in a strong economic recovery that supports their highest priorities. Another example of our government's commitment to tax fairness is our proposed tax for non-resident-owned, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused, which would become effective as of January 1, 2022. While this tax would not be paid by individual Canadian homeowners, it would definitely benefit Canadian families. That is because the recent and rapid rise in housing prices has made finding an affordable place to call home increasingly difficult. The underused housing tax would help support investments in housing affordability so that all Canadians can have a safe and affordable place to call home. Our recent federal budget introduced what may be the most ambitious plan to build new housing that Canada has ever seen, putting Canada on the path to double the number of new homes we build over the next 10 years. These—

1427 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 73