SoVote

Jun/8/23 4:07:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I did not get to the very end of our motion today, but the idea is that there would be some kind of financial transfer. The money for the subsidies that the government gives to the fossil fuel industry should instead be transferred to the provinces so that they can fight climate change, get prepared, and adapt to these changes. Personally, I see that the provinces, Quebec and organizations like SOPFEU are well organized; they are taking the lead and asking the federal government for help as needed. That is the federal government's role. I do not think that it needs to take the lead on this, but it does have to step up if the need arises. If the necessary resources are not there, then we should get them. There is already international assistance on the ground, with over 700 people from other countries, including the United States. As for France, it has sent a hundred people to help out. That is wonderful, but do we need to be better prepared? The answer is “maybe”, but let us send the money to the provinces so that they can take care of it.

205 words

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

Jun/8/23 4:08:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc wants to see all fossil fuel subsidies come to an end. Are there any exceptions in her mind, for example, orphan wells? The government is assisting in getting rid of those wells. Orphan wells are bad for our environment. There is a cost for the government to deal with them. The Bloc considers that a fossil fuel subsidy. Is that a bad thing for the government to be doing? What about fossil fuel subsidies for people who live up north? From the Bloc's perspective, is that a bad fossil fuel subsidy?

96 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Jun/8/23 4:09:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is the problem right there. When the government promises to stop helping polluting industries that are already making billions in profits each year, it always finds a way to get around this promise and still help these industries, saying that it is to help them green their operations. The same can be said about orphan wells: The government says that they need to be dealt with. At the end of the day, the government keeps wanting to give money to these industries. However, it has been proven that these industries are the most polluting and that they are capable of looking after their own affairs. Therefore, I think that these subsidies need to be ended once and for all and that we should support renewables and green energy. That is where the money is needed.

138 words

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

Jun/8/23 4:10:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work and her speech. We have an excellent motion before us today. However, based on experience, I fear that the Liberals will vote in favour of this motion and then do nothing. In other words, they are all talk and no action. What would my colleague like to see the Liberal government do once this motion is adopted?

67 words

Action

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Jun/8/23 4:10:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is simple: The government must completely stop investing in fossil fuels. That is what I want to see happen once this motion is adopted. I want the government's actions to match its words. It is talking about drilling for oil in marine refuges, marine areas that are protected, which is completely crazy. If the government were consistent in its approach, it would not do something like that. We have an incredible opportunity at the moment, because there is a minority government in power. If the opposition parties stood together to hold the government to account, fossil fuel subsidies might already be a thing of the past. Unfortunately, some parties, like the NDP, support the government in its budgetary policies.

125 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/8/23 4:11:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague, whom I know personally, and I know that she has lost her voice because of the current situation and the poor air quality. I know she went to bed early yesterday and had her hot milk. I understand that the situation affects everyone. I would like to begin by highlighting the work of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I know this is difficult for her. The fires are not under control. There are evacuations in Chibougamau and Chapais. I know this is a particularly tough time, so I want to say that we support these communities. My faithful squire, the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, and I will be pleased to welcome these people to our region. I know that they are currently travelling to Roberval, which is in the riding of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but I want to give him a hand to ensure that these people are properly welcomed, as will be the people from Lebel-sur-Quévillon. When I look at today's motion and the current situation, I wonder what we need to do. What is the best response to support people who have been displaced? Preventing such events from happening in the future is the best response. To prevent them or, at the very least, mitigate them takes some political courage. I have often heard the Prime Minister say that he would be there. It is a phrase he uses often. I have even heard him say they would be there to be there. That is quite something. However, being there means going beyond the rhetoric and actually doing something. I say that because when I hear a Conservative member, I disagree with him, but I know what to expect. I remember that the Conservatives had an opposition day to celebrate oil. They said oil was irreplaceable. That is the vision of the Conservative Party, so I know what to expect. In the case of the Liberal Party, the problem is that, often, the Liberals are a bit like Conservatives who ignore each other. What I mean is that they have the same approach to the oil and gas issue, but they wrap it up in a nice little package. However, the candy inside is the same: unwavering support for the oil and gas industry. This leads me to believe that there has to be a change in culture in Canadian politics. I see oil as such a strong symbol of identity in Canadian politics that no one is prepared to admit that this sector of economic activity creates enormous problems. It is similar to the gun issue in the United States. No one is prepared to say that staking it all on fossil fuels will create problems in the long-term that will cost us a fortune. Let us look at what has happened over the past two years with the approval of the Bay du Nord project and the government's desire, which was again mentioned during oral question period, to drill oil wells in a marine refuge. This led the mischievous member for Mirabel to say that with Guilbeault, we will get our drilling licence. He copied Elvis Gratton's famous phrase, “With Groleau, I will get my liquor licence.” It is just as ridiculous to hear the colonized Elvis Gratton speak about his future based on a liquor licence as it is to hear the Minister of Environment defend his decisions, which are incoherent if he is any sort of an environmentalist—but I'm not the one who came up with the comparison. Let us continue in the same vein as the member for Mirabel. I find that the NDP is paying dearly for its dental insurance, because they have no choice but to support this government's positions and to vote for gag orders. Once again, this made the infamous member for Mirabel say that by spending so much time at the Liberals' feet, the New Democrats are going to get oral thrush, that little problem that can affect our toe nails. When I think of the oil and gas sector, I think of a bottomless public money pit. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. In last year's budget, there was $2.6 billion for developing carbon capture and storage technologies. Businesses said that if we wanted to take that route then 75% of the cost associated with these new technologies needed to be assumed by the governments. What a sham. They are trying to develop low-carbon oil. The government is defending that by bringing in programs. There are two major carbon sequestration projects and 57% of the money funding those two major projects is public money. There is also the emissions reduction fund, which was introduced during the pandemic. In the end, we read in a report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that this fund did everything but reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector. Then, there is Oil Change International who told us that Canada gives 14 times more in subsidies to fossil fuels than to clean energy. That is 14.5 times more subsidies to fossil fuels than to clean energy when the average for the majority of G20 countries is barely 2.5. If we, by which I mean everyone but me, take a look at ourselves, we see that Canada is the country with the worst track record when it comes to supporting the oil and gas industry. That is not to mention all of the talk about blue hydrogen. We no longer want to talk about so-called blue hydrogen. We are going to take gas and make hydrogen using carbon capture technology. That hydrogen will supposedly be a source of clean, renewable energy. Only experts in the gas industry could say such a thing. They are taking it even further than that. SMR technologies were designed to meet the needs of the gas industry so that it could use less gas in its processes and sell that gas. We thought that SMR technologies might be the solution. The Canadian federation is caught in a stranglehold because most of the funding allocated to economic development goes to the oil and gas industry. On average, the EDC invests about $14 billion a year in that sector. It is difficult to provide accurate figures because we do not know how the government defines fossil fuel subsidies. During the election campaign, Minister Guilbeault said—

1109 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 4:19:57 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member that we cannot refer to members by name. The hon. member for Jonquière.

22 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I sincerely apologize. I am a respectful man, and yet I still made a mistake. During the election campaign, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said he planned to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. This is 2023, and the government still cannot define what it considers to be an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy. It cannot even define what a subsidy is. It simply does not have the courage. Speaking of courage, the latest on the list is the much-touted just transition. Apparently, the government no longer wants to use the term “just transition”, because it could be used in a play on words with the Prime Minister's first name. The government now prefers to talk about sustainable employment. What a show of courage. If Canada does not have the courage to use a term, a concept, that is used internationally, how are we going to implement measures that require courage? The government does not even have the will to use the correct term. The cherry on top is Trans Mountain. The bill for that is now $30 billion. I would remind the House that the government's post-COVID‑19 recovery plan, which was supposed to be green, was $17 billion. A single oil project has cost $30 billion. It is nonsense, especially when the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated many times that we would never make a penny on this project. It is a money-losing venture. The government's promise was to take the profits generated by Trans Mountain and reinvest them in clean energy. There will be no profits. They will not exist. We are trapped in this box. I will be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

292 words

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

Jun/8/23 4:21:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent motion. I have just one question. Did the leader of the Bloc Québécois read the motion before my hon. colleague moved it? The leader of the Bloc Québécois, when he was minister, was very much in favour of developing oil on Anticosti Island. He circumvented BAPE three times on development projects. He authorized McInnis Cement, one of the most polluting projects in Canada and he was in favour of the third link highway project between Quebec City and Lévis, which was recently cancelled by the CAQ government. Obviously he will have the last word and will be able to reply, but does the member not see major contradictions between his motion and the positions of his leader?

136 words

Bloc
Quebec

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:22:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the only big contradiction that I see, is that of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and the former NDP leader who said that the Energy East pipeline was a win-win-win. Had there been an NDP government, there would have been a pipeline from western Canada to Quebec. That is a bloody contradiction.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 4:23:12 p.m.
Watch

I would ask members to be careful of the words they use. I give the floor to the hon. member for Essex.

22 words

Essex
Floor

Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC)

Jun/8/23 4:23:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as someone who was a firefighter for seven and a half years, I know a thing or two about firefighting. I also know we cannot always have all the resources at our fingertips, but we have other folks around us, from other municipalities, provinces and, quite frankly, across the country, who come to the firefighters' rescue. As we are now seeing U.S. cities filling up with smoke, would the member agree with me that we have to use more of a national strategy and work with our partners in the United States to fight fires on both sides of the border?

104 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:24:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, had my colleague listened carefully to my presentation, he would know that I said at the beginning that we need to work on prevention. If we want to prevent these very intense forest fires, we have to think about more than just how to fight them. We have to think about how to prevent them. If we want to prevent these forest fires, we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. That has to be understood. That is the starting point. If we continue to court disaster by producing more oil and gas, we will have to allocate phenomenal amounts of money to fight climate change in the next 20 years. That is what we must deal with. That is the strategy that we must put in place.

130 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/8/23 4:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to pick up on my colleague's last statement. He talked about phenomenal amounts of money. In 2022 alone, $275 billion were needed to address natural disasters around the world. That same year, big western oil companies made $220 billion in profit. Meanwhile, in Canada, we are giving $20.215 billion to support oil companies. Could my colleague comment on this situation?

69 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Jun/8/23 4:25:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it makes no sense. Since 2022, the gluttonous oil and gas sector has been reaping record profits: ExxonMobil made $56 billion, Shell made $40 billion and TotalEnergies made $36 billion. In 2008, their oil refining margins went from 9.4¢ to 48.2¢. We cannot be supporting these big oil companies with public money. As the member for Mirabel has repeatedly said, at some point, we will realize we have been shafted.

79 words

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

Jun/8/23 4:26:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start my comments by thinking of those individuals who have had to weather the forest fires, particularly those who live and work in the communities who, whether in terms of recreational, work or living environments, have incurred a great deal of hardship. One cannot underestimate the degree to which these fires have impacted literally thousands of lives in a very real and tangible way. We recognize the interruptions that have taken place as a direct result. However, we do not often hear about a wildfire taking place in a particular community. It might be on the news for a day or two, maybe more than that, but what remains in these communities is there for a long time. It takes a while for a community to bounce back. To those individuals, I want to extend my best wishes and recognize what they are going through, which is a great difficulty that no doubt creates much anxiety and stress. They should know that they have a national government that is doing what it can in co-operation with different levels of government, stakeholders and non-profits. Obviously, the Government of Canada will do whatever it can with respect to our firefighters; whether they are paid or volunteer firefighters, the government has their back. The second thing I will comment on is the firefighters. The other day, the Prime Minister was talking to me and others about a situation, which was referred to earlier today. Two firefighters were called into a home just north of Halifax. There was an elderly gentleman with dementia who had gone missing, and family members called in expressing concern. They were not too sure where he was, but they believed he was actually still in the home. The two firefighters busted down the door and went into the home, with smoke all around and flames flying. They found the elderly gentleman sitting in a chair, in good part unaware of what was taking place, and they rescued him. In a very humble way, both firefighters said, in essence, “That's what we do.” I think that those two fine gentlemen embody the spirit and goodwill that we see day in and day out in our first responders, both from those who get paid and those who volunteer. I think I can speak on behalf of all members, no matter what political party, in recognizing the efforts of our firefighters. This is where I wanted to start things off. It is an interesting process when we see disasters in communities. In Manitoba, we have had forest fires and floods, and I will provide comments on both situations. However, right now, I want to recognize these three provinces in particular: Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta. I also want to talk about how people come together. Let us recognize that. The government plays a very important role. There is absolutely no doubt of that, and I will expand on that. However, we see people come together when there are tragedies that take place in communities. They do this in different forms, whether it is through volunteering, sending money or other forms of support. It could be as simple as a prayer at a local gurdwara, church, mosque or synagogue. It could be sending support in the form of cash. We see that time and time again. In Alberta, we saw people from Manitoba pitching in to help fight the wildfires. We have a wonderful neighbour, the United States, to the south of us. President Biden was talking with the Prime Minister of Canada. As one member referenced, smoke and wildfires do not know any boundaries. The smoke from the fires from the province of Quebec is travelling all over the place and crossing international boundaries. I would suggest that it did not even have to take that for the President of the United States and the Prime Minister to have a discussion; we now have individuals from the United States coming north to help us deal with the wildfires. Whether it is the communities at the micro level, the different levels of government or international relations, we see people coming together. This is because we recognize the harm being done, not only to our communities but also to our environment as a whole. That is why we have such programs as the disaster program, which is there to support Canadians, because disasters take place. I looked something up. I understand that it was actually Pierre Elliott Trudeau who established the program, the request for federal assistance, back in 1970. It was an interesting figure that I received. It is estimated that 280 events have happened since 1970. If we put that into the perspective of what we have witnessed over the last few years, there is no doubt that we are seeing an increase. Interestingly enough, in terms of those direct federal contributions, we are looking at close to $8 billion over that time frame. We can look at what we are spending today in terms of disaster support. A hurricane hit Atlantic Canada, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. Homes were destroyed. The municipality went to the province. The province then came to Ottawa, and Ottawa has been there to support Atlantic Canada after that storm. We continue to be there today to support Canadians, as we are there today for the people of Alberta, Quebec and other jurisdictions where we see these disasters taking place. In the past, my home province of Manitoba has had forest fires and floods displace thousands of people. We need to recognize that there are things the government can do that will, in fact, make a difference. One of the best examples that comes to mind, as I see my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa walk in, is “Duff's Ditch”. A premier from Manitoba said that one of the ways we can avoid the city of Winnipeg flooding all the time is to build a floodway around the city. If we look at the south, where the water comes from, the floodway takes the water just before it enters the city. When the Red River is overflowing, Duff's Ditch will take the overflow around the city. It takes it around via the east and then dumps it back into the Red River once it is north of the city. What an idea that is. This is the type of investment that we need. We need to become more resilient. Former Premier Duff Roblin has often been referred to as a visionary for trying to deal with this particular issue. I can tell members that, with respect to the amount of real dollars, even factoring in inflation, billions have been saved as a direct result of this. The premier at the time realized the benefit of looking at what is being thrown at us through the environment. By doing this, people's lives were protected in many ways, and property was protected in terms of flooding. There have been occasions when we have had floods in the city and in the Point Douglas area, the area I represented. Back in 1997, I can say that the federal government was supporting the area. I remember when Jean Chrétien came to Point Douglas to support Canadians in the north end of Winnipeg at a time when we had needs. Therefore, there have still been issues. I use that as an example, because one of the things that we need to recognize is that climate change has really had a profound impact on weather patterns. Because of emissions and other environmental factors, we are seeing a greater number of disasters. As a result, different levels of government need to take more action. We have a national government that states that it has set up a national adaption strategy. It is the first time ever. As a national government, we are saying that we need to have a strategy that encourages municipalities, provinces and others to look at ways in which we can improve the infrastructure, so that when disasters hit, we can minimize the cost and the damage to our communities. There is no question about whether that will happen. We are talking about 1.6 billion new federal dollars. That is on top of the $8 billion that we put in place since we have been in government. No government in the history of this nation has invested more in infrastructure than the current government has. That is why, when I hear some opposition members saying that we are not doing enough or asking what the is government doing, I would suggest that they review some of the budgets that have been introduced. They will see hundreds of millions of dollars, going into multiple billions, to invest in things like infrastructure. They have seen a government focused on dealing with the environment in a very real and tangible way. Whether it is working with indigenous, provincial or territorial governments, the federal government understands and appreciates that there is joint jurisdiction in many different areas, and the environment is one of them. Earlier today, someone posed a question in regard to our oceans. I happened to be sitting beside the minister responsible for oceans, and she gave the answer. Canada has three oceans from coast to coast to coast. Often, people forget about the north. Do people know that under 1% was actually protected when we formed government back in late 2015? Not even 1% of our coastal Canadian waters, which we are responsible for, were actually protected. Today, one can multiply that by almost 15. Just under 15% of Canada's coastal waters are now under protection. What was even more encouraging is that the minister responsible for oceans talked about 2025. There is a very good chance that, as a government, we are going to hit 25% of our oceans being protected. We have the Prime Minister and cabinet saying that this is not good enough, and we can even attempt to do better. By 2030, let us see if we can get it up to 30% of our coastal waters. I believe that we are on target to hit that type of a milestone. The amount of land being converted for conservation has dramatically increased under the government. I believe we have even seen the adoption of what could be three, maybe more, new national parks under the government. They say let us talk about other policies. We have budgetary policies, or monetary policies, and we have legislative policies, or initiatives. Let me give members an example of both. From a legislative perspective, we have brought in legislation to have net-zero emissions by 2050. For the first time ever, we now have, in legislation, a law that says that Canada will be at net-zero by 2050. That is a very important commitment in law that is coming from the Government of Canada, a legislative initiative. We also have a budgetary initiative that will have, and has had, a very positive impact on Canada's environment and the people of Canada, which is the price on pollution. The Conservatives call it a carbon tax. Countries from all around the world, back in 2015, went to Paris, and one of the points that came out of Paris was the idea of a price on pollution. It was not a new idea, but it was amplified in Paris back in 2015. It was not new because the first government in North America to have a price on pollution was the Province of Alberta. It was a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta that brought it in. It was not new. When this government adopted it, we brought it back to Canada. We said that we are going to have a price on pollution because it is the right thing to do. We instituted a rebate to support Canadians. The system works so that there is an incentive, whether one is a consumer or one is within the industry, for less emissions, for ensuring that we see actions being taken to protect our environment. The Conservatives have been all over the map, like a fish out of water, flipping and flopping, depending on who their leader is. The current leader says they do not support the price on pollution. I am hoping that fish is not dead yet, and we will get another flop or a flip. I am hopeful. I believe there are members of the Conservative caucus who understand the benefits of a price on pollution. There were leadership candidates, although they lost, mind, in the Conservative caucus who actually support it. It is always interesting to watch when the Conservatives get a little bit embarrassed or humiliated on that particular issue.

2147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 4:46:21 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Transportation; the hon. member for Nunavut, Northern Affairs.

54 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Jun/8/23 4:46:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-204

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North speak about how much the Liberal government is doing. People in my riding of York—Simcoe are on the outside looking in. I am going to give the hon. member a couple of examples. He spent about five minutes talking about oceans, but the member's government did not support my Bill C-204, which was to stop the export of plastic waste for final disposal. Basically, the Liberal government said that it was not happening. The funny thing was that The Fifth Estate tracked containers going to Thailand, which proved it, and asked the environment minister why the Liberals did not vote for it. It would be a sign, to stop dumping plastics into the lake and burning plastics. Also, I alluded to waiting since 2015 for the Lake Simcoe cleanup. Where is the cleanup fund for Lake Simcoe? Here we are, eight years later, and there is no money for Lake Simcoe. I am happy the member is getting the water agency in Winnipeg, even though we asked for it in the Great Lakes and Lake Simcoe. Whether that is due to a by-election happening there now or not, I do not know. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

219 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/8/23 4:48:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, talking about cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess, let me draw a comparison. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, and containers of garbage were being shipped from Canada over to the Philippines, where they were left to rot. It caused such a stink that the people in the Philippines were telling Canada to take back its garbage. The then president Duterte said, and I think he meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, he would declare war on Canada to have it take back its garbage. Not to worry, we avoided that by ensuring there was a place for us to take back the garbage, and we did. It was somewhere in British Columbia. They took care of the garbage and did a fine job. We are used to cleaning up Stephen Harper's mess—

139 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 4:48:59 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Mirabel.

8 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 209