44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
- May/17/22 10:13:40 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions to present to the House.
The first is about National Defence's excessive use of a temporary road on the Plains of Abraham that negatively impacts the quality of life of individuals, of the people of Quebec City who live near the site. It degrades the heritage site. The temporary road has been in use since 2013 and is still open.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:14:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from people who are concerned about the G&R recycling facility in Kanehsatà:ke.
The facility contains toxic waste being spilled into the environment, which is a threat to residents' health.
The petitioners are calling upon the federal government to secure and decontaminate the site. From a reconciliation perspective, they are calling on the government to fight environmental racism.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:14:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the third petition is about the machinists' union.
Federal law contains loopholes that make it possible for employers to pay part-time and casual workers a lower hourly wage than they pay full-time workers doing the same work. That is discrimination.
Legislation received royal assent in 2018, but a date of effect was not given, which means this discrimination has gone on since 2018.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:14:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the final petition is from people who are concerned about pollution and, in particular, the impact of explosives in fishing waters, interprovincial waters and international waters.
The petitioners are calling for an end to the construction of all facilities used by highly polluting industries. They are also calling for meaningful consultation with indigenous communities and for impact assessments conducted by neutral third parties.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:54:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am very much looking forward to his speech. I think we will have a lot to learn from him on this vital topic.
I am very proud to rise in the House to talk about the environment, the climate emergency and the crisis that is affecting us all and will, unfortunately, continue to affect us throughout the coming years. I will also talk about the concrete solutions the NDP is putting forward in this motion.
We could talk about a lot of things. A lot of people are talking about the price of gas right now. It is hurting a lot of people in many provinces and many regions. People are finding it hard to travel or get to work because it is costing them more and more money. I would like to share some data from a graph I found recently by Gérald Fillion, a Radio-Canada economics reporter. He makes it very clear that claims about the price of gas being connected to the invasion, the war, high government taxes or the carbon market are not true.
Between June 2008 and May 2022, the price of oil went from 84.5¢ per litre to 91¢ per litre. This is not that much. The increase is slightly more dramatic in the carbon market, where the price went from 1¢ per litre to 8.8¢ per litre. The refining margin jumped from 9¢ per litre to 48¢ per litre. The biggest increase in the real cost to consumers at the pump is the refining margin, which is the oil companies' profit.
We could tax these large companies, which are making huge profits. We could put forward very simple solutions, such as those proposed by the leader of the NDP, which include temporarily suspending the GST on heating bills; increasing the GST tax credit, which would help those most in need and a good part of the middle class; and increasing the Canada child benefit, a progressive measure that would once again benefit those most in need, workers and the middle class.
Clearly, the money is there, and the economics reporter's table shows us why oil companies are seeing a dramatic increase in their ability to make profits.
During the first quarter of 2022, in three months, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil and TC Energy posted $2.95 billion, $1.17 billion and $1.1 billion in profits, respectively.
The Liberals are giving them money. They think that these companies do not have enough. They are taking consumers' and taxpayers' money, even though the government has been promising them since 2009 that it would reduce oil and fossil fuel subsidies. They have still not even begun to do so, other than a few crumbs in the last budget. The government is also behind, in terms of its pairing with Argentina to review progress in phasing out subsidies to oil companies.
What is more, the government found another present in the latest budget in the form of $2.6 billion tax credit for these companies to invest in a technology that most people doubt is even feasible. It is a pointless pursuit, a technological fantasy that distracts us from real solutions for a carbon-free society and economy. Most of the countries that have tried carbon capture have not been successful.
My colleague from Vancouver East asked a good question earlier. With the record profits that these companies are making, can someone explain why they need public money to invest in new technologies? It seems to me that they are on quite solid financial ground. If they believe that it is the right thing to do and want to help reduce greenhouse gases in Canada, it seems to me that they have deep enough pockets to make those investments.
There are two problems. First, the technology is not really reliable nor is it guaranteed. I will come back to that. Second, these companies do not need this money. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Liberals and the Conservatives are addicted to fossil fuels and unable to rid themselves of this dependency and to begin the shift and the transition that is required.
The following saying is erroneously attributed to Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Everyone believes that Albert Einstein said that, but it is not true. Someone else did. It really does not matter, because it is a good saying.
Why do we continue to double down on this economy?
Yes, it provided for communities, families and provinces for decades. No, it will not go away overnight, but it is not the economy of the future. We need to make this transition. We need to invest in training our workforce. We need to invest in green and renewable technologies that will also help create jobs, but we are not doing that. We are doing the same thing we have always done, thinking it will produce different results. That is not going to work. It has not worked for 10 years. It has not worked for 15 years, but the government still insists on giving gifts to these corporations.
Recently the Liberal government was quite proud to boast that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions had declined for the first time in 2020. What happened in 2020? It was the pandemic.
The economy was shut down. Manufacturing, transportation and foreign travel came to a halt. People were holed up in their homes, no longer using their cars or trucks. It took a global pandemic and an economic shutdown for the Liberals to be able to say that GHGs went down over the course of a year. This is nothing to be proud of. I heard the Minister of Environment and Climate Change recently, and I could not believe it. I think we need to be a little more discerning and take a much safer path, one that listens to science and is serious about our collective future, our jobs, our ecosystems and our future generations, but that is not the case here.
Despite all the rhetoric, all the promises made, and the fact that various environment ministers have attended COP24, COP25 and COP26, aid to oil companies from successive Liberal governments has been, on average, higher than the Harper government's financial aid to oil companies. They all told us, with tears in their eyes, that this is important and that they would be able to do things differently.
Unfortunately, we are going to have to continue pushing the Liberals—both in the House and outside—to finally do the right thing, because the measures currently in place will not get us where we need to go. As a reminder, Canada provides more public funding to the fossil fuel sector than any other G20 country. Between 2018 and 2020, there was 14 times more funding for oil and gas than for renewable energies. I hope my colleagues think that is unacceptable. We are not moving in the right direction, and it is important to say it.
The Liberals promised in 2009, before the G20 and the entire world, to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. What is sad and incredibly politically cynical is that several years later, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has to remind us that there is no definition for an inefficient subsidy. Moreover, it is not the Department of the Environment that determines what is efficient or inefficient, it is the Department of Finance.
For the finance department, it is not rocket science. If it makes money, it is efficient. If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, which is more of an environment and climate goal, we need a clear definition of the goal, which is to be a net-zero society by 2050. We need to take specific steps between now and then so we can see our progress and figure out which measures work and which do not.
People often talk about the cost of investing in renewable energy or training, but they never talk about the cost of doing nothing. If we do nothing, we will see more droughts, more floods, more forest fires. The climate refugee crisis will get even worse. Not long ago, it was 53°C in India and Sri Lanka. Massive parts of the planet may become uninhabitable. Those people will migrate. Naturally, they will want to survive. That could cause wars to break out. The cost will be exorbitant. The Liberal status quo will not save us.
1455 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
