SoVote

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/17/22 4:50:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge in regard to carbon capture. I am sure he is aware that the 14 of us from Saskatchewan have been, for years, encouraging the government to look at that and realize that in Saskatchewan we have been developing this whole program in Estevan, Saskatchewan, for a long time. There have been 4,402,000,073 tonnes of carbon capture, since this establishment was developed, going into the ground. Can the member please explain to me, if he is concerned about sequestering and doing what is best for the environment, why his government is not taking advantage of getting that last bit of oil, which is significant, out of the ground from pumps that already exist, rather than creating more greenhouse gases by having to develop more pumps?

140 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/17/22 4:51:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am completely and utterly for innovation within the oil and gas industry that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As we continue to earn revenues from this sector and as we continue to export this product to markets that need it, we are talking about energy security and the North American energy markets. They are very integrated, and we work together with our partners, but I continue to see innovation as being crucial, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions across this beautiful country we call home.

89 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/17/22 4:52:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Liberals talk about the fight against global warming since 2015, but they bought a pipeline and are still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Oil companies are currently raking in billions of dollars in profit while consumers pay over $2 a litre at the pump. Is he not ashamed?

56 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/17/22 4:53:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 845,000 hard-working Canadians go to work every day in the energy sector in Canada. They are hard-working folks. They do what is right for their families, and they try to put some money away for the future of their kids. We need to continue to support them. The energy industry is going to be with us for many years to come, and we need to make sure, as the energy transition moves along, that we have its back.

83 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/17/22 4:53:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as has been put forward by over 400 leading academics across the country, carbon capture is a false climate solution. It is a distraction from decarbonization. A recent study in the Netherlands made clear that 32 out of 40 times it is used, emissions went up. Given the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge's interest in affordability, I am wondering if he could reflect on what the $7.1 billion in the recent budget could have done, if it was put toward low-interest loans, for example, for households to action on climate.

95 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

May/17/22 4:54:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said to the member for Kitchener, very clearly, carbon capture and storage is one tool we will utilize in working with industry and stakeholders. I would like to remind the hon. member that we put $4.4 billion in home energy retrofits and loan and grant programs that Canadians are utilizing today.

56 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/17/22 4:54:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am very much looking forward to his speech. I think we will have a lot to learn from him on this vital topic. I am very proud to rise in the House to talk about the environment, the climate emergency and the crisis that is affecting us all and will, unfortunately, continue to affect us throughout the coming years. I will also talk about the concrete solutions the NDP is putting forward in this motion. We could talk about a lot of things. A lot of people are talking about the price of gas right now. It is hurting a lot of people in many provinces and many regions. People are finding it hard to travel or get to work because it is costing them more and more money. I would like to share some data from a graph I found recently by Gérald Fillion, a Radio-Canada economics reporter. He makes it very clear that claims about the price of gas being connected to the invasion, the war, high government taxes or the carbon market are not true. Between June 2008 and May 2022, the price of oil went from 84.5¢ per litre to 91¢ per litre. This is not that much. The increase is slightly more dramatic in the carbon market, where the price went from 1¢ per litre to 8.8¢ per litre. The refining margin jumped from 9¢ per litre to 48¢ per litre. The biggest increase in the real cost to consumers at the pump is the refining margin, which is the oil companies' profit. We could tax these large companies, which are making huge profits. We could put forward very simple solutions, such as those proposed by the leader of the NDP, which include temporarily suspending the GST on heating bills; increasing the GST tax credit, which would help those most in need and a good part of the middle class; and increasing the Canada child benefit, a progressive measure that would once again benefit those most in need, workers and the middle class. Clearly, the money is there, and the economics reporter's table shows us why oil companies are seeing a dramatic increase in their ability to make profits. During the first quarter of 2022, in three months, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil and TC Energy posted $2.95 billion, $1.17 billion and $1.1 billion in profits, respectively. The Liberals are giving them money. They think that these companies do not have enough. They are taking consumers' and taxpayers' money, even though the government has been promising them since 2009 that it would reduce oil and fossil fuel subsidies. They have still not even begun to do so, other than a few crumbs in the last budget. The government is also behind, in terms of its pairing with Argentina to review progress in phasing out subsidies to oil companies. What is more, the government found another present in the latest budget in the form of $2.6 billion tax credit for these companies to invest in a technology that most people doubt is even feasible. It is a pointless pursuit, a technological fantasy that distracts us from real solutions for a carbon-free society and economy. Most of the countries that have tried carbon capture have not been successful. My colleague from Vancouver East asked a good question earlier. With the record profits that these companies are making, can someone explain why they need public money to invest in new technologies? It seems to me that they are on quite solid financial ground. If they believe that it is the right thing to do and want to help reduce greenhouse gases in Canada, it seems to me that they have deep enough pockets to make those investments. There are two problems. First, the technology is not really reliable nor is it guaranteed. I will come back to that. Second, these companies do not need this money. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Liberals and the Conservatives are addicted to fossil fuels and unable to rid themselves of this dependency and to begin the shift and the transition that is required. The following saying is erroneously attributed to Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Everyone believes that Albert Einstein said that, but it is not true. Someone else did. It really does not matter, because it is a good saying. Why do we continue to double down on this economy? Yes, it provided for communities, families and provinces for decades. No, it will not go away overnight, but it is not the economy of the future. We need to make this transition. We need to invest in training our workforce. We need to invest in green and renewable technologies that will also help create jobs, but we are not doing that. We are doing the same thing we have always done, thinking it will produce different results. That is not going to work. It has not worked for 10 years. It has not worked for 15 years, but the government still insists on giving gifts to these corporations. Recently the Liberal government was quite proud to boast that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions had declined for the first time in 2020. What happened in 2020? It was the pandemic. The economy was shut down. Manufacturing, transportation and foreign travel came to a halt. People were holed up in their homes, no longer using their cars or trucks. It took a global pandemic and an economic shutdown for the Liberals to be able to say that GHGs went down over the course of a year. This is nothing to be proud of. I heard the Minister of Environment and Climate Change recently, and I could not believe it. I think we need to be a little more discerning and take a much safer path, one that listens to science and is serious about our collective future, our jobs, our ecosystems and our future generations, but that is not the case here. Despite all the rhetoric, all the promises made, and the fact that various environment ministers have attended COP24, COP25 and COP26, aid to oil companies from successive Liberal governments has been, on average, higher than the Harper government's financial aid to oil companies. They all told us, with tears in their eyes, that this is important and that they would be able to do things differently. Unfortunately, we are going to have to continue pushing the Liberals—both in the House and outside—to finally do the right thing, because the measures currently in place will not get us where we need to go. As a reminder, Canada provides more public funding to the fossil fuel sector than any other G20 country. Between 2018 and 2020, there was 14 times more funding for oil and gas than for renewable energies. I hope my colleagues think that is unacceptable. We are not moving in the right direction, and it is important to say it. The Liberals promised in 2009, before the G20 and the entire world, to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. What is sad and incredibly politically cynical is that several years later, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has to remind us that there is no definition for an inefficient subsidy. Moreover, it is not the Department of the Environment that determines what is efficient or inefficient, it is the Department of Finance. For the finance department, it is not rocket science. If it makes money, it is efficient. If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, which is more of an environment and climate goal, we need a clear definition of the goal, which is to be a net-zero society by 2050. We need to take specific steps between now and then so we can see our progress and figure out which measures work and which do not. People often talk about the cost of investing in renewable energy or training, but they never talk about the cost of doing nothing. If we do nothing, we will see more droughts, more floods, more forest fires. The climate refugee crisis will get even worse. Not long ago, it was 53°C in India and Sri Lanka. Massive parts of the planet may become uninhabitable. Those people will migrate. Naturally, they will want to survive. That could cause wars to break out. The cost will be exorbitant. The Liberal status quo will not save us.

1455 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 5:04:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, carbon capture and storage is necessary. I would think that even my friends in the New Democratic Party and Green Party would acknowledge that to be a fact. Going forward, investment in technology could assist the world in being a healthier place, if technology continues to advance in that direction. Does the NDP have a position on carbon capture and storage? Is it in favour of that kind of technology?

72 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/17/22 5:05:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we would support it if it worked and if we had scientific evidence that it could be used and would help us make progress. Some 80% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the burning of oil, not the life cycle fraction of the barrel of oil when it is extracted. In the United States, 80% of carbon capture projects have failed. There is even a Shell carbon capture operation near Edmonton that produces more greenhouse gas emissions than it captures.

82 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

May/17/22 5:05:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think my colleague has the correct figures on the Canadian economy. There is no doubt that carbon capture is the most advanced decarbonization option currently available in the world. The International Energy Agency has indicated that carbon capture is the most readily available technology for energy decarbonization. Will my colleague follow the advice of scientists or of the people who gave his party bad advice?

70 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/17/22 5:06:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I would remind him that the evidence I provided him shows that this is not reliable technology, and that carbon capture has not proven successful. What is more, if he insists on listening to the International Energy Agency, does he not agree with the agency that all fossil fuel products should from now on stay in the ground?

67 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

May/17/22 5:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier my colleague was talking about dependency. I must say that it is a bit contradictory, since the NDP members are dependent on the Liberals. Also, the motion moved by his party denounces the tax credit created in the budget, when the NDP voted in favour of that budget. That is a bit contradictory. Can my colleague explain that to me?

63 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/17/22 5:07:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very easy to explain. This is a Liberal budget, not an NDP one. When we no longer are the fourth party but the first, we will not present this kind of budget. In the meantime, we are negotiating and attempting to get what we can. I remind my Bloc Québécois colleagues that they too have supported Conservative or Liberal budgets that contained subsidies for the oil companies or the Trans Mountain purchase. We need to be careful, because both sides have done it. However, the NDP sought gains for Quebeckers, such as dental care, lower prescription drugs, a definition of affordability and better access to housing. We can vote in favour of a budget even if we do not agree with everything, as my Bloc Québécois colleagues have often done in the past.

146 words

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

May/17/22 5:08:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the key principles when it comes to tackling the climate crisis and other environmental problems is the principle of polluter pays. I wonder if my colleague could comment on things like the orphan well program, in which billions of public dollars are going toward cleaning up problems created by fossil fuel companies, or, in this budget, the $2.6 billion going toward carbon capture. Do they support the principle of polluter pays?

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/17/22 5:09:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. We do agree with the polluter pays principle with respect to fossil fuels and other sectors, as well, such as mining or forestry. I think it is an important principle that significantly helps change behaviours and make companies and businesses more environmentally responsible in general.

55 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/17/22 5:09:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to stand in this place and once again speak on behalf of the amazing residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am pleased to rise to support the motion that is before us today on the NDP opposition day, which has been put forward by my hon. colleague and almost neighbour, the member for Victoria from beautiful Vancouver Island. Today's motion is really trying to bring together several themes: the theme of massive corporate profits, the theme of rampant climate change and also the theme of inflationary pressures, both as they relate to climate change and as they are affecting residents like mine in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, but also right across this great country of ours. Before I delve into the specifics of the motion, I think it is important that we put today's conversation in the context of what is going on with climate change. I want to start by saying that if we look at the history of oil as an energy source, there is no argument that it has absolutely been one of our most volatile energy sources. It has experienced massive booms and busts, and with those decreases and increases in price so have risen and fallen the fortunes of many. It has never been reliable as something that is stable for people. We can see that in the current context. It has always been subject to geopolitical tensions and profiteering by various companies, which have driven the price up for ordinary consumers, and sometimes it has brought about change much faster than ordinary working Canadians can adapt to. I would argue that today's circumstances are one such example. I also think it is very important because we are talking in the House of Commons a lot these days about inflation, but what we are not talking a lot about is the inflationary pressures of climate change. That needs to be part of this conversation. We can look at what climate change is starting to cause around the world. Not just the world, but we can look at what happened to my home province of British Columbia last year. In one single calendar year, we had one of the highest heat waves ever recorded, which caused hundreds of deaths in the Lower Mainland and led to raging forest fires across my beautiful province, and a few short months later that was followed by one of the most disastrous flood events ever to happen in the Lower Mainland, a flood event that effectively cut off the port of Vancouver from the rest of the country. We are talking about inflationary pressures here. We can look at how much the Government of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia and, indeed, the federal government have had to pay to adapt to that climate-related event. We have to ask ourselves this in the House, because we are talking a lot about the money that is to be made and oil as an energy source, but we never quite contemplate the question of how many future tax dollars we as a society are prepared to spend to both adapt to and mitigate climate problems as an event. Make no mistake, this question is settled and the science is clear. Extreme weather events like the ones we saw last year are going to come more frequently. They are going to come more powerfully. We as a country are going to deal with worsening flood events, extended droughts, forest fires and massive heat waves that will bake our urban centres and kill people. This is going to cost money. It is going to be a real problem. Unless we, as the House of Commons, treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, we are failing the Canadian people and we are failing future generations. There has been a decided lack of ambition, action and commitment to effectively address this problem and put in place policies that are going to deal with it. Going to my riding, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on Vancouver Island, and looking at the current inflation pressures on working families, we have experienced some of the highest gas prices across the country, over $2 a litre in many cases. I have a farm truck. I remember that a couple of weeks ago I went to fill it up, and it was the first time ever that it cost more than $200 for a fill-up. That is a regular problem for working families in my riding. We know low-income families are hit the hardest by rising prices because those increases in fuel prices not only affect the vehicles that they have to fill up on a weekly basis, in some cases for their work, but they affect everything that is transported using fossil fuels. If people are in the middle of a renovation or if they are going shopping, we know the price of food has gone up, as well as the price of materials and the cost of labour. These are all very real pressures. On gas prices particularly, this is where we add insult to injury, because the average family in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are standing at the pump watching the dollar figure go up as they are filling up their vehicle, and then they look at the newspaper and see the record profits oil and gas companies are making in Canada today. Billions of dollars are being paid out in dividends. Billions of dollars are being paid out in corporate executive compensation. Then to add further to that, they learn that the tax dollars they are paying off every paycheque are in fact being used by the Liberal government to subsidize those very same companies, inefficient subsidies to help them with exploration, but even in the most recent budget, that subsidy to help companies with carbon capture and storage. Let us make this very clear. Oil companies, with today's prices, are profiteering off the backs of working families, and I do not see either of Canada's biggest political parties standing up, stating that this is an unequivocal fact and putting in place policies that are actually going to help working families. Both of these parties are far too deferential to corporations in this country, and it shows by the way they argue in the House of Commons. If we look at the federal subsidies to oil and gas, we absolutely have to change course. Canada provides more public financing to the oil and gas sector than any other G20 country. Between 2018 and 2020, Canada provided 14 times more support for the oil and gas sector than for renewable energy, and this is in the face of all the evidence we see with climate change around us. Last year alone, the Liberals handed out $8.6 billion in subsidies and public financing to the fossil fuel sector, but the cherry on the cake is the fact that they have now added a $2.6-billion carbon capture tax credit, which is actually their largest “climate” item in the budget. This is unproven technology. It is money that should be spent in completely different areas if we are going to tackle this problem with the urgency that it so very rightly deserves. In the final two minutes, in my conclusion, I want to say this. We know Canadian workers want to be a part of the climate solution. Our workers, and let us not call them oil and gas workers but energy workers, have the transferable skills to work in any industry that we put our minds to. They want to be a part of the solution. They have the skills to make Canada a renewable energy leader in this world to help put us at the forefront of the 21st century economy. However, we need to make sure that the federal government is putting the fossil fuel industry on notice, putting Canada on notice, that we are going to change our direction, that we are going to be where the puck is going, as is the famous quote that comes often from Wayne Gretzky. We need to make those investments in renewable energy. We need to electrify our grid. We need to make those energy retrofits a part of helping low-income families, and we need to make sure that through this process we are creating those good, long-term jobs for Canadians and communities right across the country, which will make life more affordable. I think that through this motion today we need to redirect the subsidies that we are pumping into profitable corporations and reinvest that money directly into the pockets of low-income families, just like the working families that live in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. We need to make sure that we are converting that money instead into doubling the GST credit and making sure that the Canada child benefit for recipients goes up. By putting that money directly into the pocketbooks of Canadians, we can help them with the inflationary pressures they are dealing with right now. It will make a real difference, and it will send a signal to the world that we are serious about changing course.

1556 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 5:19:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the NDP is underestimating the potential technology advancements with regard to carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage is, in fact, a possible reality that is not that distant in the future, and it can be of great benefit not only to Canada but to the world in being able to achieve ultimate climate targets into the future. To underestimate that technology, and to say that it is not worth the Government of Canada investing in it, I think would be strategically a wrong message to send. I am wondering if the member could be very clear whether the NDP is saying no to carbon capture technology.

112 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/17/22 5:20:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the contrary, as the NDP's agriculture critic, I am very proud to say that the technology already exists. Canada's farmers are leading the way. If the federal government wants to make a real difference, it will help farmers in rural communities make that transition to things like regenerative agriculture, paying attention to soil science and making sure that soil carbon sequestration is a centrepiece. I believe that our farmers have an important role to play in this whole conversation. They want to be placed on that pedestal as climate leaders. They are already doing this, but they need a partner in Ottawa to do it, not investments in an unproven technology.

116 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

May/17/22 5:21:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I respect the member, but it is always interesting to me when I see members of the NDP get on plane rides with me back to Vancouver regularly and then talk about how we need to phase out fossil fuels in their entirety. My question tonight is around Arctic sovereignty and energy security for us in Canada and the world. Canada has a huge role to play geopolitically in supplying energy to our allies, and yet we have not heard that from this member. We have not heard from the NDP at all on what our other role is in Canada, and it is a pretty significant role: to provide energy to our allies. I would ask the member to speak on that exact matter. How does he see Canada playing a role in our geopolitical reality, supplying energy to our allies?

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/17/22 5:22:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this very question has come up before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, of which I am a member, looking at what Canada's Arctic sovereignty is like vis-à-vis our security stance with Russia. I would argue that we need a renewed commitment with the Inuit people who live up in the north and who know the ways there. They need to know that they have a firm and strong partner in Ottawa who is going to respect their traditional way of life, learn from them and find ways to partner to make sure that we do have that Arctic sovereignty firmly in mind, because I do not think that our policies to date have really respected the change in the geopolitical alignment that has happened, especially this year with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

142 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 73