SoVote

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

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/17/22 5:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Alberta has one of the most inefficient tax systems in the country because it has a fuel tax but no value-added tax. On March 31, Alberta decided to pause collection of the fuel tax. We see that this idea is gaining momentum here among our Conservative friends. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Conservatives' idea to stop imposing the GST on fuel, even if temporarily. If he is against the idea, I would like him to tell us what could be done to fight climate change with the GST tax revenue collected by the federal government.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

May/17/22 5:23:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is funny to me, because I do not really think that the oil and gas lobby actually needs to spend all that money coming to Ottawa; it already has a political party here doing that work for free. The Conservatives are great friends in that regard. I believe that the motion we have constructed today, about tackling excess profits, is in fact the way to go, rather than the reduction in fuel taxes. What has been left out of this conversation is the extreme profits of corporations. I think we need to tackle that and reinvest that money directly into the pocketbooks of Canadians. I am lucky to live in a province that is not subject to the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, because unlike other provinces, British Columbia decided that it did not want an “Ottawa knows best” approach, and we have asserted our provincial authority in this realm.

156 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

May/17/22 5:25:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am really happy to participate in this debate. It is hard to know where to start with this motion because, to be kind, it makes very little sense. The first thing we talk about is record profits or profits. The New Democrats talk about this as if it is something terrible or dirty. How dare a company make a profit? The thing they always have difficulty with, as I do not think there are very many business people in that caucus, is that companies sometimes make profits, yes, and in other years they do not. Profit is what enables companies to invest in things like technology and CCUS. The problem is that right now we have a global search for investment, so we have to compete here in Canada with the investment opportunities being offered all around the world, in particular with CCUS. What is the alternative? This is where the New Democrats and the Liberals are together on everything. They want to shut down all kinds of development in this country so that they can say they balanced and lowered our carbon emissions. However, guess what? The demand for oil is not going anywhere. The demand for other products in the energy industry is not going anywhere either. Guess what happens. These companies go to other parts of the world to supply that demand. How do they do that? They do it in countries where the environmental standards are lower and where they do not have to worry about their carbon emissions, so we end up with greenhouse gases increasing. Why has so much industry moved to China? It is because it uses coal-fired energy, which is terrible for greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than trying to stop all of these projects here in this country, why do we not look at making Canada an energy superpower with low-carbon emissions? That is what investments in things like CCUS are going to do. Otherwise, oil and gas production, mineral exploration and anything else will go into higher-intensity production per barrel and per kilogram around the world. The last time I checked, we do not have a carbon dome over Canada. We are not protected by exporting carbon emissions to China or other countries around the world. This ideological approach actually harms the country. We lose investments in businesses and industry, investments that create good-paying jobs and that allow companies to make profits. Here is what the NDP often forgets: Profits lead to taxes and taxes fund the social services we have in this country. Taxes fund everything. Corporations have to be profitable in order for us as a country to have tax revenue to provide the services we have in this country. Why the New Democrats are so unhappy that there are profits in the oil and gas sector I do not know. The profits and taxes from the oil and gas sector have funded so much across this country, and somehow they pretend they do not. It is terrible. The New Democrats talk about the record oil profits of those terrible companies, but they are paying loads of taxes that provide the social safety net in this country. It is completely irresponsible to say there should be no CCUS in this country for oil and gas. What would that do? As I have said before, it would dramatically reduce oil and gas in this country. The New Democrats would say that is great; that is what we want to do, except the demand does not go anywhere. Rather, it just shifts to other countries that will not worry about their carbon emissions and may not worry about other environmental standards. Canada cannot go to the dark ages of investment that this NDP motion is trying to take us to. The motion has to be opposed. The cognitive dissonance the NDP has that somehow stopping all oil and gas production in Canada will solve the problem does not make any sense and does not work. Let us vote against this motion.

677 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 5:30:08 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, May 2, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The member for Edmonton Griesbach.

81 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais

May/17/22 5:31:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 5:31:26 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. It being 5:31 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

52 words

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

May/17/22 5:32:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-232

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to this bill introduced by the member for Ottawa South. As everyone knows, this bill would designate the month of April as Arab heritage month. The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We are pleased to acknowledge the extraordinary contributions that the Arab community has made to Quebec society. The majority of Canadians who report Arab origin live in Quebec. They are primarily of North African and Lebanese descent. This has to do with the colonial past of many Arab countries, which were French colonies. Many people in these countries speak French as a first or second language, in addition to Arabic. Quebec's shared history with the Arab community started with the arrival of Ibrahim Abou Nader, the first immigrant from Mashreq to settle in Canada. Ibrahim Abou Nader was originally from Zahleh, in what is now Lebanon. After a short stay in New York, he decided to travel to Montreal after hearing that they spoke French there, because he was more familiar with French than with English. He married a French woman in 1890, and their daughter, born in 1892, was the first baby of Syrian descent born in Quebec and therefore in Canada. I would point out that, where the text of the bill refers to Arab Canadians and Arab Canadian communities, it paints a picture of populations of Arab origin in Quebec and Canada that does not reflect reality because it suggests that the Arab diaspora makes up a uniform community all across Canada. Indeed, many people, Westerners in particular, tend to think that all Arabs are Muslim, that all Muslims are Arab and that all Arabs speak that language. However Arabs practice different religions. Consider the Lebanese community, which is really big in Quebec and whose members are more likely to be Catholic. Consider the fact that most of the world's Muslims are not from Arab countries but from countries such as Indonesia, India and Pakistan. Consider that many people of diverse Arab backgrounds speak French, which helps explain why they choose to settle in Quebec and why this bill needs to take Quebec's uniqueness into account. Of course, Quebec and Canada's respective national realities have had an impact on how successive waves of immigrants have been welcomed over the years. While Canadian immigration laws and policies have been applied throughout Canada and have influenced the pace of Arab immigration in what could be called the golden age of immigration, Quebec's explicit desire to strengthen its ties with Maghreb countries and to promote francophone immigration, expressed since the Quiet Revolution, has necessarily had an effect on the trajectory of Arab immigration to Quebec that sets it apart from the rest of Canada. More importantly, the linguistic and cultural factor is enough to preclude equating the journey of Quebeckers of Arab origin with that of Canadians of Arab origin. In fact, they do not integrate into the same society. Immigrant populations that settle in Canada outside Quebec are integrating into Canadian society, in other words, into the English Canadian majority. Immigrant populations that settle in Quebec integrate into Quebec society, in other words, into the francophone majority. Accordingly, the back-and-forth movement and the important relationships between Arab migrants on both sides of the North American border explain why a certain number of pioneers pass through an American city before settling in Canada, especially in Quebec. Given the historical factors that explain why many Arabic populations already share francophone culture, it is only natural that the integration pathway differs depending on whether it is experienced in Quebec or in Canada. It is perfectly possible and desirable to recognize the cultural heritage of people of Arabic origin in Quebec and Canada. That is why the Bloc Québécois intends to support the principle of this bill. It is not necessary to lump in Quebeckers with Canadians as though they were part of one and the same community, the Arab Canadians, as the bill seems to wrongly suggest. Abitibi—Témiscamingue, more specifically Val-d'Or, is another region affected by the most recent wave of immigration. It reflects the Quebec situation on immigration on a smaller scale. There are a lot of francophone nationals from different continents. As we see, newcomers of Arabic origin are more likely to settle in major centres and less so in the regions. Despite the omnipresence of francophones, Val‑D'Or has had a multitude of cultural communities from its earliest days. The arrival and the number of cultural communities changed with the times. We can even list different waves of immigration in Val-d'Or, which contributed to its cultural richness, so unique to Quebec. However, there are very few people of Arab origin in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. According to 2016 statistics, there were 330 people in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue whose main mother tongue was Arabic. Since 2010, Muslims who settled in this riding have been able to rely on the Val-d'Or Muslim cultural association. It has created an environment conducive to the practice of their faith by providing a mosque, an imam, courses on the Koran and the Fiqh, seminars and more. Another one of the association's missions is to pass on to and preserve the culture in the minds of new generations by providing an environment suitable for teaching the Muslim faith and the Arabic language. This fosters the development of youth with a Muslim identity while facilitating the process of integration into current society. The association also offers families the opportunity to meet and bond with other community members, which helps them integrate and feel a little less distant from their family and country of origin. Finally, this association enables Muslims who have settled here to celebrate holidays and special occasions collectively in a suitable place. This strengthens their community's ties with those around them and makes it easier for them integrate into society, through cultural sharing activities organized by the association. Thanks to this association, there is a project under way to build an Islamic centre in Val-d'Or. I would like to underscore the important work being done by this association and to thank its members. As we saw earlier, the history of Arab populations in Quebec is more than 130 years old, but it is important to note that the majority of these people have immigrated more recently. For example, North African immigration to Montreal began in the late 1950s and intensified in the 1990s. In the wake of decolonization and the rise of Arab nationalism in North Africa, and then the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, the pace of North African immigration to Quebec intensified. The Quebec government wanted to give priority to francophone immigrants as early as the 1960s. In this sense, people from North Africa were an attractive target for immigration. Language, which is key to integration, can be an excellent advantage. I know that my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles mentioned this in his speech during the first hour of debate on this bill, but it is important to remember that Quebec reaches its own agreements on student mobility at the university level with various countries. For instance, the co-operation agreement between the Quebec government and the Algerian government in the field of education and training promotes financial support for students, exchanges between higher education institutions, the circulation of scientific and technological information, and so on. According to the 2016 Canadian census, 368,730 people in Quebec reported being of Arab origin. In other words, a huge proportion of the people of Arab origin living in Canada, nearly half, are Quebeckers. Whether they speak Arabic or not, Arab Canadians can and do maintain ties to their cultural heritage through traditional cuisine, music, dance, news media, travel to their country of origin and correspondence with friends and family members who are still back home. In general, first-generation immigrants are more likely to stay connected to their cultural heritage than their Canadian-born compatriots. However, even though many Canadians of Arab origin have essentially lost contact with their past, the majority of them are aware of their ethnic origin and proud of it. April will become Arab heritage month to focus on recognizing the contributions that Quebeckers and Canadians of Arab origin make to our society every day.

1416 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 73