SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 10:37:21 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up. I tried to give her a signal, but I am not sure if she saw me. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

35 words

Secretary

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

May/17/22 10:37:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we have seen over the past number of years from this administration is historical amounts of money being put into the green transition. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years alone. This is a government that is committed to the green transition, and I will get an opportunity to expand on that particular point later. In this most recent budget, budget 2022, there was a commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that commitment.

100 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/17/22 10:38:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2019 the Liberals promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Instead, they increased them. The Liberals have been in power for almost seven years and have been increasing fossil fuel subsidies to the tune of, on average, $900 million each year. That is just the increase. Now they are providing a new subsidy of $2.6 billion to oil and gas companies that are making record profits. It is hard to believe the Liberal promises when they continue to do the exact opposite of what they say.

89 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

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

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/17/22 10:40:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to look at the WTO's definition. It is a internationally recognized definition of what a subsidy is. It includes those kinds of loans and public financing supports to a specific sector that convey a benefit. If we take internationally recognized definitions, such as the WTO's or the UN's, we would actually be including things like the government's recent $10-billion loan for the TMX pipeline. We would be including so many more things than the government actually deems to be a fossil fuel subsidy. The government has not only promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but it has also promised to eliminate public financing. It has promised to phase out public financing to this sector. This sector is making record profits, and we could be taking those billions of dollars and investing them in the climate solutions that are so desperately needed.

153 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/17/22 10:41:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have known about the Liberal government's unfortunate propensity for funding oil and gas for quite some time now. I am glad my colleague moved this motion. There is one small problem, however. The NDP-Liberal marriage means that the NDP will be forced to vote in favour of the $2.6 billion set aside for carbon capture strategies. Not only will the NDP be voting in favour, but they have asked to cut short the debate. Does my colleague think that putting the health of the planet at risk is a high price to pay for dental insurance?

103 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

May/17/22 10:41:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly proud that my NDP colleagues and I have pushed the government and used our power in a minority Parliament to not only secure the largest expansion of health care in a generation, but also to secure commitments to a just transition on low-income energy retrofits and on reducing emissions. What this means is that we are going to be pushing the government to fulfill on its commitments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. It is part of the reason we are bringing forward this motion today. I will continue to push the government to take real action to invest at the scale that actually meets the urgency of this crisis.

115 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/17/22 10:42:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today as the member for Timmins—James Bay on this very important issue. We are dealing with two major crises right now. One is the question of affordability and the massive prices that people are paying at the pumps, at a time when we see big oil racking up record profits and gouging consumers at the pumps. The fact is that Imperial Oil announced its best opening quarter in 30 years, with $1.17 billion in profits. Canadian Natural Resources doubled its year-over-year first-quarter results with a profit of $3.1 billion, and Suncor brought home $2.95 billion in quarter one, quadrupling last year's results of $800 million. Where is all that money coming from? It is coming from Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average who go to work every day and are getting gouged at the pumps. We will never hear the Conservatives talking about price gouging. They have all kinds of theories about how unfair it is for big oil to make record profits while people cannot afford to go to work. It is the same as how the Conservatives are trying to talk about high grocery prices as some kind of Bank of Canada conspiracy on inflation, when, in fact, we learned that Loblaws made record profits this year. They are making money gouging Canadians. At the same time, of course, big oil continues to get free money from the Canadian taxpayer. It refused to pay $256 million in taxes to municipalities in rural Alberta. It left an abandoned oil well cleanup of over a billion dollars: abandoned wells are leaking planet killers such as methane. It expects the public to pay for that. It is calling on the government to change the basic environmental regulations that protect the Athabasca River system, a fragile ecosystem, so that it can dump the toxic waters from tailings ponds. It never talks about the huge damage that it does from every barrel taken out of the oil sands or the amount of water that is contaminated and held in these tailings ponds, which are larger than the city of Vancouver, but it expects the public to assume those costs. Of course, we see the $570 million for the methane cleanup. Methane is a planet killer. We all know that. This is something that big oil, with its record profits, could easily have handled, but no: It asked the public to pay to stop the leaking methane. What we saw from the Environment Commissioner's report was that this was used as a subsidy to increase production. The issue of affordability is one factor, but there is a much bigger factor facing us. We are the first generation in history to actually be in a position to decide whether our children have a future or whether we are going to continue to have cheap gas. We talk about a climate emergency. It does not even come close to talking about the situation we are in. The UN has released its latest statement calling “a code red for humanity”. It claims “a damning indictment of failed global leadership” on the climate crisis. UN Secretary-General Guterres says that what we are looking at is “an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.” He says: Nearly half of humanity is living in the danger zone—now. Many ecosystems are at the point of no return—now. Unchecked carbon pollution is forcing the world’s most vulnerable on a frog march to destruction—now. There is nothing theoretical about this. The Economist, which is hardly a left-wing journal, says that we have to act quickly before time runs out. It gives us until 2025 to deal with peak oil. The International Energy Agency, another industry voice, says that given the emergency of the climate crisis, there cannot be any more new fossil fuel projects, yet what we see in the House, and what the Canadian people see, is that climate change denial is the fundamental cornerstone of Canadian economic policy and it is the fundamental cornerstone of the government. We know that the Conservatives will ridicule any efforts on climate change. We hear them laughing when it is talked about. The issue is with the Liberals, though. The Liberals have made promises because Canadians want someone to do the right thing on the climate crisis. We are not seeing that. We want to talk about a number of things that we need to break apart on the Liberals' arguments because they are perpetrating a scam on the Canadian people. The idea of net zero by 2050 is an absolute scam. They went to COP26, where the Prime Minister and the environment minister claimed they would cap emissions. That certainly shocked everyone in Canada because they had not talked to anybody about this emissions cap. We are never going to see that emissions cap. It is not going to happen. Why is it not going to happen? The emissions cap is not going to happen because the Liberals are telling Canadians that they can increase oil production while getting to net zero. It is a ridiculous proposition, and it is all based on the idea that they were somehow going to decarbonize the oil, but the problem with that is that it is not possible because what is coming out of the oil sands has one of the the highest carbon emissions prints on the planet. Year in and year out, despite all the promises to lower those emissions, it has not happened. A headline in The Wall Street Journal refers to it as among the “Dirtiest Oil” on the planet. Those are the facts. We can look at the environment minister's latest big green plan, which he said was planned out based on the Canadian Energy Regulator's information. The Canadian Energy Regulator predicts that, under the government's plan, in 2050 the amount of oil that will be produced and burned will be the same as the amount of oil burned and produced in 2019. Liberals are not moving off the carbon economy. In fact, as the Canadian Energy Regulator says, they are planning a massive increase of up to 1.2 million barrels a day. We have already seen this. We have seen Bay du Nord, with an extra 300,000 barrels a day. We see the money they are pumping into TMX for an extra 800,000 barrels a day. This is not going to help Canadians at the pumps. This is for export. The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that the primary objective of the government is the supremacy of the market, and the market is exporting Canada's oil and increasing exports to the world market, yet the Liberals claim they are going to get to net zero. Here is the other part of the scam: Every barrel of oil exported does not count toward Canada's emissions. They are going to come up with some hoodoo numbers to say there are no emissions costs here, but right now, even without the increase of 1.2 million barrels per day, Canada's offshore oil export emissions are more than all of the emissions in every sector in Canada today. The government says it is not efficient to actually target the full amount of emissions. The fact is that the planet does not care who burns the oil or where it gets burned. The government is committed to driving the oil agenda and giving big oil whatever they ask for to make that happen. This leads me to the other issue I am very concerned about, which is the so-called “just transition”. It has been very depressing to sit at the hearings on the just transition and see where the government is going on this. I come from in Northern Ontario where we have lived through unjust transitions. When 4,000 workers lost their jobs in the uranium mines, there was not an alternative. When we lost the entire silver and iron mining economy in Temiskaming, there was not an alternative. The transition then was brutal. We have seen the economic possibilities. We have Calgary Economic Development and Edmonton Global talking about thousands of new jobs. We also have clean energy tech talking about a 50% increase in clean energy jobs. The problem is that, to get those jobs, we need investment, and the government continues to deliberately underinvest in the new economy, so it is leaving workers high and dry, and it is making vague promises about a transition, but that is not happening. The clock is ticking. The government, Parliament, leaders in the provinces and our federal leaders are responsible to the next generation as we look at a situation of the planet overheating. The red lines are there, and we have the opportunity and the possibility to transform, but we just do not see the political will. That needs to be challenged.

1521 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 10:52:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two points. One is in regard to the resolution the NDP are making in reference to the price of gas. I guess this would be just acknowledging that what is taking place in Europe today is having a profound impact on the cost of gas, and this is, in good part, because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There is a world environment and a world price for oil. I am interested in the member's thoughts on the cost of a litre of gas as a direct result. The second point deals with the end to fossil fuels, which is a commitment the government to has made to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023. I would like the member's thoughts on that. It was an item that was listed in the budget.

141 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 10:53:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals did promise, in 2019, to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies, and then they amended it to say “inefficient”. Well, “inefficient” means anything they want it to, such as the $570 million the government gave to the methane cleanup, and we have no proof that the money was actually spent on dealing with methane. The issue here, in terms of Putin's war, has certainly exacerbated the price of oil. It has created a crisis, and that has to be addressed. However, we were told the government was going to have an electric vehicle plan. We do not even have a plan to get the charging stations. Canadians across Canada would love to buy an electric vehicle, but if they cannot plug it in, what are they going to do? I am looking at the budget, and I see more support for oil and gas than I see for the clean energy alternatives.

161 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

May/17/22 10:54:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's honesty in saying that he opposes affordable gasoline for Canadians. He wants high gas prices. My question to the member is this: Why will his partners in the Liberal government not also claim victory on this? The Liberals brought in the carbon tax with the stated purpose of raising gas taxes at the pump. That is what happened. Now they are running for cover and blaming it on Russia. I will give members one example. In my riding, a litre of gasoline is $2.00 a litre. Across the border, 10 minutes away in Maine, it is $1.50. That is a 50¢ difference. Now, all that gasoline comes from the same place, which is the refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. Maine does not have a more efficient refinery with harder workers or lower input costs. It is coming from the same place. That difference is all tax. I would say it is mission accomplished, as they are driving up the price of energy in this country. Why will the Liberals not also claim credit on this and say, “Mission accomplished”?

192 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 10:55:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member has to put on a little circus act and make complete misrepresentations. This is a party that has supported convoy people supporting white replacement theory. This is a party supporting anti-vaxxers. Now, the Conservatives are claiming that we support high gas prices, when we see that they are misrepresenting the carbon tax. Do members know that if Suncor was not carbon taxed, it would pay $830 million instead of the $30 million it pays now? The carbon tax is not causing this, and we see the price gouging that the Conservatives support time and time again because they are total puppets for big oil's interests.

117 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/17/22 10:56:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, whom I quite like. Often the Conservatives are puppets of the oil and gas sector, but my colleague from Timmins-James Bay is often a puppet of the Liberal Party. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources received an assistant deputy minister of the environment. Unfortunately, he pretended to have technical problems to avoid answering our questions on the Bay du Nord development project. When I asked that the assistant deputy minister be invited back before the committee, my colleague from Timmins-James Bay was against the idea. He said he did not want assistant deputy minister to come back. As far as dental insurance is concerned, does my colleague not sometimes feel trapped in the Liberal Party's puppet games?

131 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 10:56:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is pretty sad to see the Bloc members so angry because they sit in the corner and nobody listens to them any more. The fact is, we got the largest investment in public health care since Tommy Douglas and, oh boy, does that upset a group that does not want any investments at the federal level, so now they are going to claim that us taking the Liberals on is somehow puppetry. We are seeing that the Bloc members are not even puppets. They are just an audience, and as an audience, they are not even participating properly and doing their work. They came here to defend Quebec, but we do not see them defending Quebec. It was the New Democrats who stood up to defend the extra seats in the House. They just stood to say, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” An hon. member: Oh, oh!

152 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/22 10:57:33 a.m.
Watch

Order. Before we continue, we are starting to have other members wanting to participate when they should not be participating. I would ask parliamentarians to wait until I recognize them during questions and comments. That is the best way for the House function properly. Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has the floor.

68 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

May/17/22 10:58:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South. Climate change and the environment are very important to me and my community. It guides the work that I do in this place, and that is because the threat is not theoretical. It is real. It is happening right now. Right across our country last summer we saw floods and wildfires. These events destroyed people's homes and their livelihoods. We need to take strong action as we face this reality. Today, I will focus on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which we have committed to do by 2023, but I would like to begin by talking about the heavy lifting that we must do and that we are doing right now to fight climate change. One of the most impactful and earliest steps we took was to put a price on carbon pollution. It encourages businesses and individuals to make choices that result in fewer emissions. It is a strong market mechanism, and all of the funds that are collected through the price on carbon pollution are returned to the province where it is collected. None of it stays with the federal government. I want to be clear about that because sometimes I feel like that is lost in our conversations. It is described sometimes as a tax, but that was clearly put to bed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not, and none of the funds stay here with the federal government. It is all returned to individuals and the provinces from where they were taken. I will give some good news. We have finally begun to flatten the curve on emissions. The first year when we saw the curve beginning to flatten was 2019. There was a decoupling. The economy grew, but emissions did not grow at the same pace, and in 2020, our emissions dropped. Much of that was due to the pandemic and the fact that we reduced travel. There is no doubt about that, but part of that drop was also due to the fact that we have cleaned up our electrical grid As part of that, we are well on our way to removing coal-fired electricity from our electrical grid, which would reduce air pollution and emissions. We are investing in nature-based solutions, such as planting two billion trees and working to protect our lands and waters. We have put into law that we must achieve net zero in our country by 2050. We released the emissions reduction plan under the law for net zero by 2050, which sets projections for all sectors of our economy to reduce emissions and includes mechanisms to reduce combustion of fossil fuels, such as moving to 100% of all new vehicle sales being zero emissions by 2050. Today's motion focuses on the narrower issue of fossil fuel subsidies and the work we are doing toward our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The commitment began in 2009, when Canada joined other members of the G20 in agreeing to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. The leaders' statement from that G20 said, “This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Previously, we had committed to meet the goal by 2025, and over the last year we have accelerated that timeline to be completed by 2023. So far, the government has rationalized or phased out the following nine tax measures that had provided preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel sector: the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, which was was announced in budget 2007 and completed in 2015; the reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2011 and completed in 2016; the phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors, which was announced in budget 2012 and completed in 2017; the reduction in the deduction rate for preproduction intangible mine development expenses to align with rate for the oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2018; the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2021; allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025, which was announced in budget 2016; rationalize the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling, which was announced in budget 2017 and completed in 2021; a phase-out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favourably treated exploration expenses, which was announced in 2017 and completed in 2019; and the phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities, which was proposed in budget 2022 and will be completed in 2023. As part of the process to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, G20 countries have been pairing among themselves for a transparent review of their work. In 2018, Canada committed to undergoing a peer review process with Argentina. We are the fourth pair of countries within the G20 to undertake that process, and it is ongoing. The previous six countries to do a peer review have generally considered fossil fuel subsidies based on the World Trade Organization's definition of “subsidy”, which is government spending, tax or non-tax, that provides a benefit. Further, countries have tailored that definition to subsidies aimed at the fossil fuel sector by focusing on those that directly or indirectly lead to increases in the production or consumption of fossil fuels. To complete our own work to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2018 conducted an extensive review of non-tax measures. This was complemented by a consultation that ran from March to June 2019 on the government's draft framework to review measures outside the tax system. This feedback is taken into account in the work being done by Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. It is reasonable to expect that the question of what type of spending is aligned with a transition to net zero will change over time. In other words, government spending in support of the transition to a net-zero, reliable, affordable energy system could look different in 2023 from how it will look in the future. I will provide an example. Support for diesel use in northern and remote communities may need to continue in the short term to ensure the provision of essential energy services. However, in the longer term, as the government continues to invest in ways of moving these communities off diesel, these types of supports may no longer be considered aligned with government objectives once viable replacement options are put in place. Before my time is up, I would like to address the motion's reference to carbon capture and storage. At a time when we need every tool at our disposal to reduce emissions, this is not the moment to remove support for carbon capture and storage. The IPCC has recognized that it plays a role in reducing emissions, as does the International Energy Agency. It is one part of what needs to be done to reduce our country's emissions and reach net zero. Recently, at the environment committee, Professor Normand Mousseau shared the following testimony in response to a question from the member for Victoria. He stated: We absolutely have to implement all reduction measures, but we're also going to have to invest in capture and storage. I'm not talking about utilization, I mean storage. Otherwise, we won't be able to achieve net zero. We believe it is important to focus on how programs can support climate targets, international commitments, long-term prosperity and job creation in the face of a global energy transition. It is global. This is happening all around the world. Canada is on a journey to a net-zero future, one that will be anchored by a clean, affordable and reliable energy system. It is important to ensure that government spending and investment are well aligned with that journey. That is the work that we are doing and are committed to completing.

1414 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/17/22 11:07:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in having my hon. colleague explain to me the fact that there was no business case for TMX. The public was told to buy it for $4.7 billion. Then it was $17.3 billion. Now there is another $10 billion on top of that in loans. That is public money to export and expand oil production. That oil production of an extra 800,000 or a million barrels a day goes offshore and does not count in Canada's emissions. My hon. colleague said this is a global issue, and I totally agree with her. Would she not agree that it does not matter where the oil is burned, as it is still affecting the planet? If we have 2025 as a target to stop increasing production, why is the government using taxpayers' money to export oil to be burned in other jurisdictions, which will not be counted on its register?

158 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

May/17/22 11:08:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the way we calculate our emissions around the world, by international agreement, is by looking at what is combusted within our own countries. We are in fact, through the emissions reductions plan, putting forward strong projections for all sectors. When we focus on oil and gas, it is not just oil and gas. In a city like Toronto, buildings are one of the largest sources of emissions. We are putting forward projections for all sectors across our economy to reduce our combustion in a very active way. That is why, when I talk about things like zero-emission vehicles, those are all part of the plan, as are retrofits for buildings. We are doing the work that we need to do, and we are providing international support for countries that need to do that work at home as well.

141 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/17/22 11:09:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech from the member. Canada is responsible for less than 3% overall of global GHGs, so I really do want a real answer to this. My constituents ask, has the government determined what impact it would have on the growth of oil and gas production in the rest of the world if we were to replace all of Canada's oil and gas production, which is the cleanest, most ethical, highest-quality production in the world, and it was shut down completely over the next 20 to 30 years? What impact would such a shutdown of Canada's resources have on the global environmental levels and the world's ability to reach net zero, and what impact would it have on the Canadian economy and on the ability of Canada to fund Canadian innovation in green technology?

143 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

May/17/22 11:10:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with the first part of that. I hear this argument a lot, about Canada's footprint as a global player not being that large, so what does it matter what we are doing here? It matters a lot. That is what we need to do. We need to reduce our emissions, and that is what we are doing. Let me get to the emissions piece. The emissions piece is what we are focusing on. That is what the atmosphere sees, emissions. It is not a matter of trying to focus on production. We have said very clearly that the oil and gas cap is about emissions. We have an emissions reductions plan that is geared to reducing those emissions, and we are taking the actions in investing and also supporting Canadian innovation to get to where we need to go to do that. That is good for our economy, because that is the economy of the future. That is the economy the world is looking for, and we are going to be competitive in it.

182 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73