SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 178 - Apr/17/23

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

Apr/17/23 5:47:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that one my colleague's biggest fans may have been in the building while she was speaking. Thinking about the topic of her remarks, particularly her remarks about the climate crisis, and thinking about her children and my children, the fact is that despite all of the good words from across the aisle, emissions in this country last year went up. We are giving money to fossil fuel companies at a time when emissions are heading in the wrong direction. How does that feel for her knowing the future we are about to hand our children?

102 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Apr/17/23 5:47:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I certainly am very concerned. I even began my speech by saying how troubling it is to see that the budget does not address the real problems. In the end, all this government did was make some nice promises. We are seeing that in many areas. Unfortunately, we are not seeing anything specific to protect the environment. We are seeing that the government is doing everything it can to maintain the petro-state in Canada. I am very concerned about that, particularly when it comes to the environment. I would like to leave a healthy, livable planet to my son, who members have heard many times. Unfortunately, that will not be the case.

123 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/17/23 5:48:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify what I think I understood. Tax credits are harder to track than direct subsidies to oil companies, because there may not be an audit for five or 10 years. The information is being somewhat hidden. At the end of 2023, the government could say that it got rid of fossil fuel subsidies, when in fact they have simply been converted to tax credits.

72 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Apr/17/23 5:49:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague completely understood the point of my speech and I thank her. That is precisely it. Now, instead of paying fossil fuel subsidies directly, the Liberals are going to do it in a roundabout way by giving tax credits. It will be very hard for the average citizen to know where this public money is going. It will even be hard for parliamentarians, yet it is their job to know where our money is going.

78 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/17/23 5:49:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as you listen to my speech, you will understand why my colleague from Terrebonne and I, and all our Bloc Québécois colleagues, are working together to denounce the tricks hidden in the budget. Chapter 3 of the federal budget presented on March 28 includes a number of elements that I would have liked to address in my speech today. The measures for affordable energy, good jobs and a growing clean economy are indeed encouraging. There are investments, which unfortunately are in the form of tax credits, for clean electricity, retrofits, energy efficiency and geothermal energy. These are positive steps. There is good news in the budget at first glance. I do, however, have concerns. Upon closer inspection, one might notice a deliberately and skilfully designed but reprehensible architecture, where, through the use of a single word, a very specific adjective, the entire industrial ecosystem of the hydrocarbon sector becomes part of the smorgasbord of public funds. That magic word in the budget is “clean”, which appears roughly 170 times in this chapter alone. I will not go into the funds, the programs, how they are managed, what the funding is for, and the other specifics because there would be too much to say. I want to be clear that there is some good in the budget. Unfortunately, the problem is that these positive measures to help the environment and uphold our international commitments are overshadowed by the fact that the fossil fuel sector has undue access to public money. The government committed to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Once again, that will have to wait because, clearly, it will not keep its word. Subsidies will become tax credits so they can be hidden. The budget is mapped out until the 2027-28 fiscal year. Clearly, this will not happen by 2023. I want to talk about hydrogen production, which my colleague also mentioned. There is the investment tax credit for clean energy. It sounds good, and it seems to me that it is not a bad idea. However, the truth is, Canada claims that hydrogen production from fossil sources, and from natural gas in particular, is clean. I am not making that up. There is, however, no credible international organization, scientist, or expert who would say that this is clean hydrogen. I am not questioning the need to develop the hydrogen energy sector. We should develop it, but it must be done right. The lion's share of the money should be spent on creating a hydrogen production complex with a net-zero or very low greenhouse gas emissions life cycle. We are talking about the production of hydrogen through electrolysis. The government has announced that this tax credit is available for production projects that use electrolysis, but also for those that use natural gas. The funding is also conditional upon the associated emissions being reduced through carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies, known as CCUS. The budget provides $5.5 billion over five years to fund this investment tax credit for what the government calls clean hydrogen. The first tax credit opens the door to another gift, another hidden subsidy for the oil and gas sector, the one for investments in carbon capture and storage, which, let us not forget, has been discredited by a host of experts around the world. My colleague talked about 400 signatories. The majority of these people have expertise in science and technology. They asked the Minister of Finance not to agree to funding this false solution, which is extremely expensive, energy intensive, ineffective and impossible to carry out in the short term when we are facing a climate emergency. They even ignored a very clear report on the subject released by the International Institute for Sustainable Development earlier this year, so very recently. Should this industry, which is rolling in profits, unparalleled record profits, not be funding the rollout of this project itself? Many observers argue that it is high time that the federal government introduced the regulations that will require the sector to fund its own emissions reductions. That, however, is just wishful thinking, as they say. Who made money in 2022? Canada's six largest oil companies made close to $38 billion in profits. According to media specializing in the energy sector, those companies intend to take a measly half percent, 0.5% of that amount, and invest it in clean technology. Some will say that $516 million over five years is the amount of the tax credits. That is not a lot. It is very little. The lobbyists will say the same thing. Pathways Alliance, where all or almost all of the companies are grouped together, is taking strong action so that governments are paying for as much of their capture projects as possible. In reality, these producers are getting far more than this half a billion, because the investment tax credit and the clean hydrogen tax credit are interconnected. If these companies actually believe in their vaunted carbon capture and storage projects and their potential, then why do they not invest more in them themselves for the prosperity of their shareholders and their image as good corporate neighbours? The budget implementation conditions merit our attention. I will summarize two important elements. The budget says, and I quote, “At this time, only dedicated geological storage and storage in concrete are proposed to be eligible uses.” We are therefore talking about carbon storage. The other features of the tax credit show that companies will be able to access these tax benefits even if the activities are not eligible. By the time an audit is done to ensure that the tax credits actually involve eligible expenses, companies will have used this accounting scenario for five to 10 years to save money, as if they do not already have enough. Add to this the following unacceptable exemption: “Corporations with projects that expect to have less than $20 million of eligible expenses over the life of the project would be exempt from [producing a climate risk disclosure report].” Simply divide that among projects under $20 million and there will be no more environmental risks. The cost of solar power has dropped by 85% since 2010. The cost of onshore wind has dropped by 68%. Even the price of net-zero hydrogen has dropped slightly below that of hydrogen produced from natural gas. This was found in early 2022, a consequence of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. For the past 20 years or so, the CO2 capture, utilization, and storage, or CCUS, program has yielded largely inconclusive results. The industry claims that potential emissions reductions from the oil and gas sector only amount to 10%. We are talking about investing billions of dollars for only 10%. Suncor estimates the capital and operating costs of its Cold Lake project at $14 billion. As for Cenovus, its project will cost $2.5 billion per year until 2050. Can my colleagues grasp what this means? If only we had other places where to put those billions. This budget does not in any way signal that the government is preparing to end fossil fuel subsidies. It has disguised them. This budget does not give us the tools to meet the target we urgently need to reach. Spending precious public funds on accelerating investments in energy efficiency, electrification and support for renewable energy is how the government should be using taxpayers' money. A parliamentary committee studied nuclear waste governance in Canada and tabled its report in the House. We produced a supplementary report. Therefore, I cannot ignore the worrisome position taken by the federal government on the nuclear industry. Some say that the nuclear industry does not emit greenhouse gases. Others say that it is part of the solution. Who is looking into radioactive waste? Is nuclear energy clean? No one knows what to do with dangerous waste materials. Small modular reactors have not yet achieved technological readiness. I will close by asking what Canada plans on doing with spent fuel. Does the government intend to sell it? I know, perhaps these are projects that will be carried out in the Arctic given that the moratorium will expire at the end of 2023. Is there going to be oil exploration in the Arctic? I am asking the question. The criticism is not over.

1406 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Apr/17/23 6:00:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. She is truly a champion for the environment. I am concerned about the use of herbicides in Canada and I would like to hear her thoughts on this.

39 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Apr/17/23 6:00:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a whole other topic, but we do know that herbicides and pesticides are bad for human health, so that is what we need to focus on. That is true for all pollution. It affects people's health. This has been proven and calculated. Its economic impact has even been measured. We need to do something about it. There are many avenues ahead of us, but we need to take them all at the same time because it is urgent.

83 words

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

Apr/17/23 6:01:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for her very interesting speech on the lack of tax credits, as well as on carbon capture and hydrogen made from natural gas. However, I would like to point out a few things that the NDP insisted on and that we are quite happy to see in this budget. For instance, regarding the infamous growth fund for the energy transition, we made sure that the unions will be at the table, because there are no solutions without the workers. I see that as a win. In addition, doubling the GST tax credit to help the most disadvantaged was another one of the conditions we set. This means that more than two million Quebeckers will receive up to $460 next summer. I think it is important to emphasize this good news.

139 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Apr/17/23 6:01:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, getting everyone around the table and being able to talk about innovation funds and so on is important. However, I just came from a committee where we talked about what happened with Imperial Oil in Alberta. When company representatives are sitting around a table, it becomes clear that there are people who listen, people who do not listen at all and people who do not consult at all. We have to keep that in mind when considering what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is putting forward.

93 words

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

Apr/17/23 6:02:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about fossil fuel profits and the fact that big business pocketed more than $38 billion this year alone. I find it very mysterious, however, that the costs associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline, which have ballooned to more than $30 billion, are nowhere to be found in the budget. There is absolutely no mention of the Trans Mountain pipeline issues in the budget. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Why has the government not cancelled this awful project already?

92 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Apr/17/23 6:03:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at a Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development meeting I attended before the two-week break, I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change why it was impossible to get out of this bottomless financial hole. He replied that I should ask the Minister of Finance. I said I was asking the Minister of Environment because he is the one who knows what is going on, who reads the summary reports and who is responsible for ensuring that Canada meets its international commitments. That is the response I got from the Minister of Environment.

98 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Apr/17/23 6:03:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her eloquent presentation. The parts about carbon capture caught my attention. It seems to me that it has practically become a new religion. It is all we hear about. It is portrayed as a miracle solution. It will be universal, and it will bring happiness to the entire planet. My colleague explained that the science seems to indicate the opposite, so why is the government still going ahead with this?

77 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Apr/17/23 6:04:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to ask ourselves why the government is continuing to move forward with this. I just want to remind the House that 100 of the 149 global carbon capture and storage projects were cancelled and that, in the United States, despite significant industry and government investment in the technology, 80% of the proposed projects failed to become operational because of high costs, low technological readiness, the lack of a credible financial return, and dependence on government incentives. Public money should go to known solutions. It should not go into the pockets of the oil and gas industry for futile projects they try to sell us on.

113 words

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

Apr/17/23 6:05:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise and speak on yet another budget. At the end of the day, when we look at the last seven and a half years and the types of things the government has been able to accomplish, I think Canadians would feel confident that the government is on the right track. We have consistently argued, over the years, how important it is that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. We have consistently argued about the importance of recognizing the role that the middle class plays in society and those aspiring to be a part of the middle class. We have looked at ways we can enhance and grow the middle class. Even during the pandemic, Canadians knew that they could rely on the Government of Canada to be there in a direct way. We had the backs of Canadians, something that is so critically important. What we have seen over the years is an official opposition that has been more focused on personal attacks. While it has been focused on that, the government has been focused on delivering for Canadians. In terms of what we want to accomplish, we have a desire to build a stronger and healthier economy and society. That is what this budget reflects. It reflects the essence of what Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect their government to do, not only during good times but also challenging times. It has been challenging over the last few years. I am happy to reinforce that the government, in a very tangible way, has been there to support Canadians. In listening to the debate, we often hear from opposition members about the issues of accountability and transparency. In fact, the last question I asked was in regard to a Bloc member who stood up and said they did not necessarily believe that tax credits are a way to provide accountability and transparency. I used the example of a very important announcement within this budget. We recognize the fine work and need for us to look at ways we can support our trades from coast to coast to coast, and the important role they play. We talk about inflation. We talk about the needs of the worker. Within this budget, we have a tax credit enhancement, virtually doubling it from $500 to $1,000. That is there to ensure that those who are working in the trades are in a better position to be able to afford the cost of the important tools they require in order to apply their trade. Yes, the government has, in this budget and in previous budgets, used tax credits to assist Canadians directly. We have seen how the Government of Canada has been able to use taxes and tax rebates as a way to directly support Canadians. We have been very effective at doing that. A major part of this budget is the grocery rebate. We recognize the issue of inflation and the impact it is having in every region of this country. We understand it. Whether during break weeks or in the month of January, Liberal members of Parliament throughout the country are talking with stakeholders and their constituents so we understand the impact that inflation is having. This budget is reflective of many of those discussions that we have had with our constituents. That is why we have the grocery rebate. Imagine approximately 11 million Canadians benefiting from the grocery rebate during a time when we have concerns with inflation. Some might argue that we need to recognize that the inflation we are seeing today is not unique to Canada; it is taking place around the world. Canada is doing quite well compared to many of the European countries or our neighbour to the south, the United States. Our inflation rate has been less, and we are on the right track. We see our inflation rate going down, and we hope to see it continue to go down. Having said that, I want to highlight the two initiatives in the budget that put money in the pockets of Canadians. One that I made a quick reference to is the grocery rebate. Many of my colleagues had the opportunity to visit some grocery stores. The Minister of Justice was in Winnipeg, and we wanted to check out a grocery store. We met with the owner and talked about the impact that worldwide inflation is having on her ability to sell products. I believe she welcomed the fact that we are providing a grocery rebate, because she, like others, understands that this grocery rebate will make a difference. It also demonstrates that we have a government that genuinely cares and wants to help, even though, as I said, our inflation rate is far better than in many peer countries around the world. However, this does not mean that we ignore the issue. We can still work to do better, which is why we have the grocery rebate. In this budget, members will see the expansion of the dental program. I have listened to a number of members stand up and be somewhat critical of the government, saying that we are not doing enough for seniors, that there is nothing in the budget for seniors. That is balderdash. There are a lot of things in this budget for seniors. This budget is a reflection of many of the discussions we have had with seniors and their advocates. One of the most powerful stakeholder groups is our seniors caucus, where Liberal members continually meet and deal with senior-related issues. Hundreds, if not thousands, of stakeholders and individuals have provided direct input in making sure there would be things in the budget for seniors. This brings me to the second point. Seniors get the grocery rebate, and they also benefit from the expansion of the dental program. We have seen how successful it was in the first year when we were able to pass the legislation. It took us a while, because the Conservatives opposed that legislation. They do not support having a dental program for children under the age of 12; they made that very clear last year by opposing the legislation. We are now expanding it to include seniors. That, too, is going to be of great benefit for seniors, which is something I would think members would recognize. Not that long ago, it was an election platform issue for the Liberal Party to actually increase, by 10%, the OAS for seniors 75 and over. We recognized that there is a significant difference between the needs and disposable income of a senior who is 75 and a senior who has just retired at 65. I am thinking of such issues as medical requirements and the potential for supplementary income. That is a significant increase. In fact, we have been there virtually from day one to support our seniors. I can talk about the guaranteed income supplement, which we dramatically increased in the first 18 months, lifting tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty. This is not to mention going through the pandemic, where we invested literally millions into non-profit groups that were supporting seniors. We doubled the youth employment program during the pandemic period and leading up to the pandemic; many of these youth worked for seniors organizations and more. The government has done all sorts of things, not only in this budget but also over the last seven and a half years to support our seniors. On the same theme, it is interesting that Conservatives will criticize us because we are spending money. Yes, I will give them that. We are spending $198 billion on health care over the next 10 years. If we check with Canadians, as I have, they see health care as part of our core identity and want a national government that is prepared to invest in health care. That is exactly what we are doing with a 10-year commitment, because we saw what the previous government did under Stephen Harper. One would have to be blind or an idiot to believe that investment in health care will not be helping our seniors. At the end of the day, if we look at the benefits—

1385 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/17/23 6:18:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. James Bezan

Apr/17/23 6:18:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member for Winnipeg North that to imply that members in this place, or Canadians for that matter, are idiots for believing there are not investments happening in mental health or seniors' health is disrespectful. He should withdraw that comment.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/17/23 6:18:27 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members to be careful with respect to the words they use in the House. I know the hon. member did not pinpoint anybody in particular. Again, I know there are words that are mentioned from time to time on both sides of the House, but I want to make sure that individuals are very careful regarding the language they use in the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

71 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/17/23 6:18:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the point is about investing in health care and not believing that this is going to help seniors. I cannot imagine anyone truly believing that that would be the case when we are investing $198 billion over 10 years in health care. I used to be the health care critic in the province of Manitoba at the Manitoba legislature. I can assure the member across the way who just stood up on the point of order that a good portion of our health care services are there to support our seniors. Obviously they support everyone, but I can tell members that our seniors truly value and appreciate the health care system we have in Canada and would appreciate and value a federal government that makes, as we have, a 10-year commitment of $198 billion over the next 10 years. We have a government that has recognized, in many ways, the benefits that can support Canadians in other areas. We hear a lot about housing. Going back to the days when I was an MLA, at one time every political party inside the House, all of them, including the New Democrats, opposed the federal government playing a role in housing. That was in the early nineties. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: Not us. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Yes, everyone, Madam Speaker. I can tell members that for the first time, we have a Prime Minister with a government that not only talks about the importance of housing in Canada, but is invested in housing like no government in the history of the country. We have the first-ever housing strategy. We are investing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in housing every year. We are supporting tens of thousands of non-profit housing units throughout the country so that there is housing for seniors, people with disabilities and people of low incomes. We have supported organizations like Habitat for Humanity to ensure there are opportunities for people who could never own a home to own a home. We are supporting the expansion of housing co-operatives. We are putting limits on foreign investments. We believe that houses are there to be lived in, that they should not be used as an investment tool by foreigners. There is also the rapid housing initiative. Time and time again, the Minister of Housing is up during question period reminding members the degree to which we are investing in housing. If we take a look at it, not only have we demonstrated that we have a role to play in housing, but we have put the challenge out to other stakeholders and levels of government to jump on board and take the types of actions that ensure housing is more affordable. Within this budget, we created the first-time homeowner accounts. We want municipalities in particular to be there, because they really do play an important role in this. We want provinces and other stakeholders to come to the table and address the needs of housing. The federal government is there, but the federal government cannot do it alone, and we have recognized that. We have done more than any other government. We would have to go back generations on the housing file. We will continue to be there. We talk about the issue of accountability. It is interesting that the Conservatives, as I mentioned at the beginning, like to focus on personal attacks. This budget is a true reflection of what Canadian expectations are of the government. Just last week, I had the Prime Minister of Canada on McPhillips Street, at the Manitoba Building Trades Institute, where he had a town hall. There were union members and others who showed up, unscripted, to ask questions of the Prime Minister to deal with issues surrounding the budget and other issues, and what the Prime Minister did in Winnipeg, he has done in other jurisdictions. We have a Minister of Finance who consistently is reaching out and listening to stakeholders. We have members of Parliament in the caucus who are consistently reaching out to their constituents and reflecting what they are hearing, whether it is on this budget or legislative measures we are taking. This is a budget for all Canadians, and it is a reflection, in terms of what we are hearing. I believe it has Canada on the right track, and the stats will clearly demonstrate that, whether it is with jobs, social services or having the backs of Canadians.

746 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Apr/17/23 6:25:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to ask a question of my colleague from Winnipeg North. He just made the comment that this is a budget for all Canadians, and it certainly is. Every Canadian is going to have to repay the extreme debt the Liberals have put this country in. It is the biggest debt ever. He talked about accountability. The current government said it spent $500 billion for COVID, and the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada indicated that 40% of that had nothing to do with COVID. That has contributed to inflation. It will continue to, and even at the rates we have, it is the worst in decades. He can compare it to wherever he likes, but comparing it to ourselves, it is still the worst ever. Can he give us an accounting of why we are still 3.5 million houses short, if the Liberals' housing program is working so well?

156 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/17/23 6:26:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are spending $198 billion on health care. We are spending billions of dollars on a child care program. By the way, in February it was shown that we have the highest ever percentage of women in the workforce, because we wanted to ensure that child care is affordable. We have ultimately gone through a pandemic where we have spent billions of dollars to support small businesses and billions of dollars in order to be able to provide direct financial support for Canadians, i.e. the CERB wage loss program. We literally saved thousands of businesses from going bankrupt by doing so and literally put food and other necessities on the table for Canadians during the pandemic. Yes, we have spent money, and I suspect now, even though the Conservatives supported a lot of those measures, they want to oppose them for political convenience, so that they can say that we are spending too much money. The bottom line is that this is a government that has had the backs of Canadians, and it will continue to do so.

181 words