44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
- May/17/22 10:39:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague in the NDP for putting forward this motion, and I appreciate the subsidiary of the Liberal Party actually putting forward a motion we can address here in the House of Commons.
I would like to ask the member about some of the numbers. She talked about $8.6 billion being provided by the government in subsidies, yet there is no tangibility of that $8.6 billion actually flowing through the government's accounts. I know that EDC provides some loans: Loans are not gifts, and are market-based from EDC at this point in time.
I have been searching for the actual subsidies provided to this industry and have found virtually none to an industry that provided over $20 billion in 2021, so I would love it if she would do that. I am going to put a definition on here. Would the member entertain a definition for what an inefficient fossil fuel, or any subsidy is, to this motion? Would she entertain that going forward so we can compare apples to apples?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:43:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate being able to get up and speak to the motion the NDP has put forward. However, as I was drafting my speech, I had to ask myself where I could start here today.
When I look at the motion, in the preamble it says, “(i) Canadians are paying almost $2 per litre of gas at the pump,” which is true. They do pay that. It then says, “(ii) oil and gas companies are making record profits,” and we will analyze what that actually means. The preamble then continues, “(iii) Canada spends 14 times more on financial support to the fossil fuel sector than it does for renewable energy,” which is complete hogwash, and I will address that item first.
The preamble itself is a mulch of misinformation, and the NDP is very good at that. The NDP is very good at putting misinformation on the table and saying, “Here's what's going to happen here.” They then repeat a narrative that is completely false. I tried to participate last week at a forum hosted by my colleague who put this motion forward. I noticed that my party was the only party that was not invited to that forum, and that is because the other parties in the House have members who buy into this nonsense narrative about the way the transition happens.
Now, my party and I have very good ideas about how we actually transition and decarbonize our economy, all of which are based on reason and outcomes, and none of which I have seen from the Liberals, the Bloc, the NDP nor the Green Party. Getting somewhere on the environmental equation is essential, and none of the other parties have presented anything that advances the environmental equation for the world. All they do is kneecap the Canadian industry.
I did some research after that forum. I went to look for where this figure came from of subsidies in Canada for our oil and gas industry being 14 times more than what we fund for our alternative energy industry, and it comes from a group called Oil Change International, which is a proxy organization for Greenpeace. Its leadership comes from Friends of the Earth, and it is funded by the Tides Foundation. It is a splash of the same voices producing louder and more dissonant narratives about how we can actually decarbonize the world.
Frankly, I will take licence on this, Madam Speaker, and you may have to slap me here, but it is a lie. It is something that this misinformation is based upon, and frankly, it needs to be called out for what it is whenever we see it here. As parliamentarians, our job here is to speak the truth and only the truth. When we foment misinformation by repeating lies from the Internet, we are going towards that confirmation bias, which we buy into and which our people buy into. We must get the real facts on the table here. We must ignore these groups, such as Oil Change International, which are just rent-seekers putting money in their own pockets at the expense of Canadians.
I actually asked if there were—
540 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:48:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is the first time I have used that word in the House. I was wondering if it was a usable word in the House or a three-letter word that disguised a four-letter word. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes, the information being fomented by Oil Change International is a lie. I will repeat that in the House, because it is the truth.
Let us go back to the analysis and look at the real numbers. I have been looking at the oil and gas industry and how much it has contributed to Canada over the past 21 years, which is $505 billion. That is more than half a trillion dollars it has given in economic rent to governments across Canada. That $505 billion is even a number in the real Liberal world, when it runs its deficits. Let us look at what that buys. How much health care does that buy? How much schooling and old age security does that buy? That buys the lifestyle Canadians have enjoyed for decades here, thanks to a prosperous natural resource industry led by Canada's oil and gas industry. The GDP number I have here is $128 billion, and $120 billion is our trade surplus in the oil and gas industry. That is balanced by about $30 billion of imports, so it is about a $90-billion surplus we are talking about for this industry, and 522,000 jobs.
I know the New Democrats would like to see those 522,000 workers have their legs cut out from under them and not be able to provide for their families, but I do not think they understand the impact that has on families, because the impact it has on families—
292 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:50:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is the first time that anybody in the NDP has actually challenged me on the truth because the motion they put on the table here is riddled with misinformation, so let us get to the heart of the matter. Do we realize the cost when we lose 522,000 jobs in Canada? It would be devastating for families across this country and there would no longer be any social support provided through that industry, which funds our country more than any other industry in Canada right now.
My colleague pointed out that $20 billion was supplied by this industry as economic rent to governments across Canada last year alone, in not that prosperous a year for oil and gas companies in Canada. That $20 billion would be in addition to the $52-billion deficit, plus all of the economic dislocation that would happen if we actually tried to change this industry more than it is actually already changing itself.
Industry has its own job to do and it is doing it very well. I am going to move to where we are actually looking at this whole notion of profitability. There is something called the reinvestment ratio. When the government came to power, the reinvestment ratio, which is the amount of money the oil and gas companies were spending to drill and develop new resources versus the amount they were actually paying back, was 1.82. That means for every dollar that they earned, they put $1.82 back in the ground to develop a future resource for Canada. It was a development industry.
That number now, members would be surprised to learn, is actually down to 0.29, so 29% of the money that comes through the industry actually gets put into development. That is because there is no line of sight on what happens to the money in the future, and that is a result of extremely poor policies from the government. There is no line of sight. Yes, the government has had to step in and buy infrastructure that should have been built by the private sector, but its policies punished those private sector organizations by asking how we invest in a country where there is no line of sight on how we actually earn money on our investments.
Government investment is fine. Private sector investment actually looks to make sure it gets a return on its investment. It is a concept most of my colleagues, in all four parties in the House, have almost no concept about: a return on investment. That is required around the world, not just in Canada.
Let us talk about the environment a bit. Let us talk about carbon capture, because my colleagues here will know it is one of my premier pieces about how we actually decarbonize the world. Somebody referenced the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agency, an international organization, of course, says that 7% of our decarbonization will come from carbon capture, utilization and storage over the next 20 years.
However, 7% is not enough. Let us find more ways to decarbonize this industry. When we think about methane reductions in Canada, we lead the world on our environmental practices and how we are actually getting to a better environmental outcome for the world. The industry's production of hydrocarbons is down 30% in its carbon intensity over the past 15 years. That leads every Canadian industry in its decarbonization.
That leads every country in the world, as far as oil and gas industries go. The only two countries we need to compare ourselves with in this regard are the United States and Norway. They are our only two peers. We are far better than the United States and we are on par with Norway, both of which have better carbon capture regimes than we do. We need to do better and make sure that our environmental practices match those of the most advanced countries in the world. We need to be the most advanced country in the world on these decarbonization initiatives.
I am going to deviate now, because I think in the spirit of productivity and in actually working with my colleagues across the aisles, I am going to propose an amendment to this bill where we add at the bottom:
(c) the Government of Canada identifies and eliminates inefficient energy industry subsidies by 2023. It should clearly identify, quantify and phase out programs for the Canadian energy sector that subsidize compliance with existing regulations.
1. Inefficient subsidies shall be deemed as those government grants or payments below market, provisions of capital, contracts for differences, social financing, unequal capital cost allowance allocation differentials, trade access, program funding and expenditures to reduce delayed taxation, such as flow-through financing mechanisms, as provided by all levels of government;
2. Further, “inefficient” shall be interpreted to mean the incentives granted under such programming shall result in fewer funds being provided to all levels of government as a result of the programming. That is, the economic rent received by the various levels of government must be less than that received had the subsidy not been implemented;
3. In addition, as energy is an essential input to society and human development, and the source of the energy is fungible with respect to its social utility, the common measurements be applied across all energy sources that receive any government subsidies or programming from all levels of government. Common comparison elements must include full cycle costing, including purchase and disposition of capital equipment and common depreciation schedules, capital cost allowance rates and accredited capital costs. The level of comparison in costs and benefits is essential to determining relative efficiency of subsidization;
4. Such inefficient allocation of government resources shall not be applied to programming that aims to obtain societal objectives beyond the aim of sourcing safe, secure, affordable energy for Canadians, specifically programming applied for scientific advancements in environmental technologies to better the outcomes—
998 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:57:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, 4. Inefficient allocation of government resources shall not be applied to programming that aims to attain societal objectives beyond the aim of sourcing safe, secure, affordable energy for Canadians; specifically, programming applied for scientific advancements in environmental technologies to better the outcomes of energy sources that are by design inefficient, particularly at the early stages of development, which is when government action through programming is most importantly applied to derive better societal outcomes.
It is an amendment that is meant to allow the government the ability to fund these new environmental technologies that are always more expensive for industry at the front end and actually continue to kind of compare a base level about what the subsidy is in this industry versus these other industries where the government is shovelling money out the door right now, to try and say this is more important for us than others. I am hoping—
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:01:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague asked a question, although it was a bunch of hyperboles. Let me respond very adroitly: $8.6 billion is not a subsidy number provided. If he wants to understand the definition of what a subsidy is, perhaps he can look it up before he comes in this House and accuses me of an ad hominem like not believing in climate change. That was a ridiculous comment and he should stand down immediately.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:03:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not here to litigate what happened over 10 years ago. I do know a handful of pipelines were built in the previous administration, contrary to what the Prime Minister puts on the floor of the House of Commons, which is again complete misinformation. This seems to be allowed in this House, which surprises me and my constituents.
If the member across who asked the question actually wants to look at what is being built in Canada right now, can he tell me why TMX is taking so long to get built? It is because of irregularity of process that his government has introduced in actually getting projects built in Canada. That is why capital is fleeing Canada and why projects do not get built here. It is why there is no investment from private capital.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:05:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend. It is very important to understand that the recent hike in gas prices is partly a result of the cost of the carbon tax applied by the federal government, currently in Liberal hands.
We have often said that it was time to reduce or defer the carbon tax for Canadian consumers. This tax is now almost 12¢ a litre for Canadian consumers—
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I heard him repeat that nonsense from Oil Change International about the NDP's motion. Has my colleague reviewed the figures that this organization provided to prove that the oil industry receives 14 times more subsidies than—
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:33:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the NDP member is saying something that never actually transpired in this House in this debate at all.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:36:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for his speech.
I would like to know whether he is aware of the amendment to the motion I introduced earlier. The NDP refused to consider the amendment, which would allow us to improve the motion and review how subsidies are granted in Canada, to one industry rather than another, for example.
Will he support the amendment?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:50:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the subsidies given to the oil and gas sector, and then he talked about the investments the government makes, including in dental care, which his party is taking a grand foray saying that it is responsible for in a $52-billion deficit that the government is foisting on Canadians and that our children are going to have to pay for. I would like the member to tell this House what the difference in his mind is between a subsidy and an investment and whether they are fungible in some respects.
Perhaps he could reconsider the amendment to the motion that I put on the table and say that maybe we need to compare these things so that there is no more language that muddles the two in this respect.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:17:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was a great speech. I am really glad that my colleague on the other side of the House gave a speech that talked about the importance of carbon capture, utilization and storage in our economy, and how important a part of the budget it is. However, I will remind him that it goes nowhere as far as making Canada competitive with carbon capture regimes around the world, including the United States and Norway, with whom we compete.
Why are we not competitive with those two very important environmental jurisdictions? Also, why is this carbon capture credit not in the budget implementation bill? That is what we are debating in the House. If it is so important, why are we not advancing this more quickly and in a more competitive way than we are currently?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:48:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have some questions about the member's figures, but I am going to get to something that I think is more important.
We are talking about 53,000 families in Alberta that were suffering during the oil and gas downturn. It is no longer in a downturn, I will point out. The Court of Appeal of Alberta came out last week and indicated very clearly that Bill C-69 was ultra vires of the federal government. That being the case, the NDP leader in Alberta indicated that the main cause of the layoffs in Alberta was a punitive regulatory regime as a result of Bill C-69.
Would the member agree with her party leader in Alberta that it is the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision on Bill C-69 that led to those 53,000 families being laid off in Alberta?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:19:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, has my hon. colleague, who gave a good speech, actually read the preamble to this motion, which talks about the increasing price of gas?
In his speech, he talked about the move toward renewable energies as replacing fossil fuels. There is a dichotomy there. I wonder if he has thought about it, because the whole concept of renewable energies and making gas more expensive is so that renewable energies do not look as mountingly expensive in comparison.
Has he thought at all about what the actual outcome is here for Canadian consumers in the critical minerals chain he is discussing?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:34:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on the other side of the House, but I want to ask him about this, because he drifted away from the substance of this motion when he started talking about trees.
Three years ago, his government committed to planting two billion trees in 10 years. That is about 200 million a year. Three years later, it is planning to plant the first 30 million, because it actually did not figure out the execution. Much like everything in its policies, it likes announcing things, but it does not actually know how to deliver. This kind of thing spins around in their heads for three years, and then they think, “Oh, yeah, we should probably start moving on that.”
Has he thought about the execution of the policies he is talking about concerning an actual energy transition?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:20:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I heard the member refer in her speech to the same misinformation we identified earlier when we talked about a lie, which was propagated by a subsidiary of Tides International. It is the only place where this “14 times” number comes up. I hope she is happy, in this House of Commons, as she and her colleagues continue to repeat that misinformation, but they should recognize what it is.
I am going to challenge the member on the whole thing: on carbon capture, utilization and storage, because she talked about it being at a demonstration level only in Canada. She also referred to the Shell Quest facility. Shell Quest is using the technology it has at Edmonton in the Northern Lights project that is offshore of Norway, which has a better tax regime than Canada with respect to carbon capture, utilization and storage. Can she comment on why we have developed technology in Canada that is now leaving to be exploited around the world in other environmental countries that are approaching the same problem?
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
