SoVote

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

May/17/22 12:54:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate our NDP motion to call on the Liberal government once again to end subsidies to its buddies in big oil. The best time to do this was years ago. The second best time to do it is today. Time is running out, yet the Liberals continue to hold on to the strange idea that we are just another couple of billion dollars to big oil away from solving the climate crisis. It is wrong, and they know it is wrong, but they continue to maintain this fallacy and hope no one will notice that they are doing the opposite of what they are saying. They may say they care about reversing catastrophic climate change, but they do not get to say they care while propping up the same companies that are wrecking our environment with our tax dollars to fund their bonuses. They do not get to say they care when Cenovus recently announced its best first-quarter profit ever, raking in almost a billion more than it did one year ago, or Imperial Oil tripling its 2021 earnings, or Suncor quadrupling its. These companies are not self-made. They are doing it with the government's help and with our tax dollars. Meanwhile, it is workers, indigenous peoples, young people and northerners who are paying the price in every way while the government sits back. These are the people who are getting ripped off at the pump and may no longer be able to even afford to drive to their jobs, or are struggling to pay rent or pay for groceries, people who are consistently left behind by a government that likes to cosplay as the plucky hero saving the environment. It is not heroic to give billions to big oil. It is not brave. It is not challenging the status quo. It is the status quo, and it is going to get our planet destroyed. It is funny. The government regularly talks about listening to science, but it rarely does so when it comes to climate change. The IPCC has been clear on the need to end oil subsidies, yet the government pretends that this is not the case. The IPCC has said that countries like Canada need to increase investments in renewables by at least a factor of three to meet our climate goals, yet the government still has not done this. It goes without saying that I would never accuse members of the government of misleading the House or even Canadians while in the chamber, but it does beg the question, what would we call a government that says it is tackling climate change by giving billions to big oil? What do we call a government that presents itself as an environmental champion on the international stage and to the public while consistently missing every target it has ever set? I will leave that question to Canadians. The facts are clear. Canada has the worst record in the G20, handing out 14 times more financing to the oil and gas sector than to renewables. It is no surprise that big oil has always had the ear of the government, which I guess is easy to do when the government has had 6,800 recorded meetings with big oil. It has worked, having successfully lobbied the Liberals for a $2.6-billion tax credit for unproven carbon capture technologies that allow them to justify increased production and higher emissions. In total, the government gave $8.6 billion last year to oil companies already raking in record profits. It is always the same with the government: help for those at the top and nice words for everyone else. Those words have been nice. In 2019, we heard about the just transition act. The government failed to deliver, and the environment commissioner recently had to call it out over its lack of a plan to support workers and communities through the transition to a low-carbon economy. At COP26 in November, we heard nice words again from the government, to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector. We heard nice words in the mandate letters for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources. Every single one had nice words about phasing out public subsidies for big oil, but recent testimony from Finance and ECCC officials at the environment committee showed that it is not much more than nice words. Let us be clear. Nice words do not help people afford their basic needs. Nice words will not stop the climate catastrophe. My home is here in northern Manitoba, where long drives between communities are a daily reality of life. People here in Thompson regularly drive eight hours to our capital, Winnipeg, to pick up supplies and things they need. For many surrounding communities, Thompson is where many people come in for health care, to access other services, to pick up groceries and to shop for necessities. This morning, the cost of gas here in Thompson was $1.85; in Cross Lake, $1.89; in Lynn Lake, $2; in Churchill, $2.56. How are people expected to have money left over for anything else when gassing up costs this much? Where do these people turn? Who is standing up for them? A better way does exist. It is not too late for the government to reverse course from the path toward climate disaster it has put us on. It starts with ending subsidies to big oil and reinvesting that money toward both renewable energy and help for Canadians struggling with the cost of living. This is what our motion calls for today. There is no reason the Liberals cannot start by eliminating tax credits for oil and gas exploration and development immediately. This would bring in almost $10 billion in the next four years. We ought to include profitable oil and gas companies in the Canada recovery dividend to tax their excess profits and redistribute that money to help Canadians struggling to get by. We must suspend the GST on residential energy bills, double the GST tax credit and increase the Canada child benefit for all recipients now. I urge this House to support our motion, but there is so much we need to be doing. We must go further. We must do more. My other question is, why have we not activated all the tools at our disposal, like our Crown corporations, and used public ownership in the fight against climate change? Why have we not made the types of investments necessary to support communities in need to fight back? Indigenous peoples and northerners are already paying the price for climate change. How many catastrophic floods or fires before we take it seriously? How many evacuated communities, destroyed homes and livelihoods gone before we finally do what we need to do to save people, communities and our planet? It seems that every year somewhere in the country there are record temperatures, floods or forest fires. Every evacuation, every destroyed community is a proverbial canary in the coal mine of climate change. Communities are crying out as they are being destroyed by our indifference. The worst part is that as long as we continue to give billions of dollars to big oil, we are subsidizing our own destruction. Every climate disaster, flood or fire is on our hands. We are doing this. Today we are witnessing here in our part of the country the devastating flooding in Peguis First Nation, a community to which the current government and governments before it promised they would fund flood mitigation efforts, a promise unmet. Now, Peguis is dealing with the catastrophic impacts: a total evacuation of the community of over 1,870 members, and more than 700 homes impacted. We are talking about a community that has flooded five times in the last 16 years. It knows how to deal with floods, but it is getting worse. The feds and the province may show up with sandbags, but when it comes to long-term support, the federal government has been nowhere to be seen. When asked about this by the CBC, the federal government refused to commit to long-term supports, leaving communities like Peguis in the lurch. Why? Imagine if there was a place for communities like Peguis to turn to in order to get the funding they need for the infrastructure they know they need that would help with climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. My bill, Bill C-245, an act to amend the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, is motivated by the communities in my riding and across the country that have nowhere to turn to get the support they need to survive climate change. This is about standing with communities. It is ultimately about saving lives. If this House is truly serious about supporting indigenous and northern communities, if we are truly serious about taking on catastrophic climate change, I invite all members to stand with communities like the ones I represent by supporting this bill when the time comes. For too long, this House, the government, has shown its loyalty to those at the top, those who need the least amount of help. It is time this House, the government, stood with everyone else. It is time the government stopped being part of the problem and started being part of the solution. It is not too late, but soon it will be. Let us get to work now.

1596 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 1:03:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, throughout the debate thus far I have often made reference to the hundreds of millions of dollars invested by this government into the green transition. The member made reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has done some fantastic work. One of the things is in the community of Brampton, for example, where a considerable amount of money is flowing through the Infrastructure Bank that will enable electric buses to that municipality, and there will be more projects toward a green transition over the next number of years. Does the New Democratic Party support the efforts of the Canada Infrastructure Bank?

103 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/17/22 1:04:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is pretty rich to hear the Liberals defending the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Not one of its projects has seen completion. It is sitting on $35 billion and has been around for over five years now. There is not much to point to, except for projects that it is interested in or is approving. As I expect my colleague to know, the reality is that first nations and northern communities have been consistently left out from many pockets of infrastructure funding, including at the Infrastructure Bank, and they are paying the highest cost of climate change. We can look at Peguis First Nation. It knows what it needs and it has been clear with the federal government, but the federal government is nowhere to be seen when it comes to long-term mitigation efforts. This is not acceptable. The Infrastructure Bank ought to be part of the solution, and the federal government needs to step up with some sense of urgency to support Peguis and first nations and northern communities that are already paying the price of climate change.

181 words

All Topics

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

May/17/22 1:05:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member. We are hearing the NDP speak out of both sides of its mouth. The member, maybe in a moment of honesty, said she is concerned about high gas prices. This morning, I asked the member for Timmins—James Bay about gas after he said we cannot have affordable gas prices, and he got up and he said that was wrong—

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 1:06:24 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. member for a point of order. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

20 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/17/22 1:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask the member to show some dignity and not lie in the House. I did not say—

21 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/17/22 1:06:32 p.m.
Watch

We do not use such words in the House of Commons. The hon. member is asking a question and referring to an earlier question in the debate. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

34 words

Mr. John Williamson

May/17/22 1:06:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is what qualifies as not being honest in the House, apparently. One moment the member says that we cannot have affordable, cheap gasoline, and when he is called on it, he says that he did not say that. In fact, it is exactly what the NDP is saying. What is the NDP's position? Does the NDP want high gasoline prices, which means Canadians are going to pay, or does it want gasoline prices to come down so that Canadians get a break and we have affordable prices?

91 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/17/22 1:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would welcome the Conservative member to take a closer look at our opposition day motion and what we are proposing. I invite him to support our motion, which is standing up for Canadians in the face of the affordability crisis and climate crisis they are facing. I am not surprised, and am highly unimpressed, by the theatre we are seeing from the Conservative Party, a party that consistently refuses to accept the reality of climate change. It is 2022. It is here. It is ravaging our communities, including communities that Conservatives represent. It is time to get on board and support solutions in the face of climate change that are focused on saving lives. I invite them to join us right now to get to work.

129 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/17/22 1:08:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I really enjoyed the message she conveyed, but some of the technical details do not add up. My colleague talked about the fact that the government is a good friend to the oil companies. She also talked about all the nice words and the fact that action is needed. It is such a shame, but I am going to have to tell her about her friends in the government and advise her that she is now part of the nice words club. We are going to see lots of great clips on the NDP members' social media about their amazing motion. We support the motion because it reflects our values. However, in a few days, they are going to vote in favour of a budget that gives billions of dollars to the oil industry and that approves the Bay du Nord development project. What is more, the budget will invest $2.4 billion in GHG capture projects that do not even work. I would like her to explain why she supports the budget.

184 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

May/17/22 1:09:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today's motion clearly demonstrates the NDP's position. We hope that the Bloc Québécois will support us. It is clear that the Liberals' actions are not only disappointing, but also part of the problem. That is for sure. Canadians expect more than just nice words; they want real action on climate change.

59 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

May/17/22 1:09:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Beaches—East York. I would like to thank our hon. colleague from Victoria for this opportunity to discuss Canada's climate plan. It is a plan that, as Canadians, we should be very proud of. I will say at the outset that we as Liberals share the member's objective: a clean and just energy transition that does everything possible to shield our planet from the climate change threat. However, her motion's wording illustrates where we differ, and I will be speaking about that today. As the member opposite knows, our government is committed to achieving a 40% to 45% emissions reduction by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. We have also promised to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. This is our first area of disagreement, because we do not consider inefficient subsidies to be any of the measures we are using to cut emissions. This brings me to our second difference of opinion. Unlike her party, the NDP, we support the development of carbon capture, use and storage technology. This technology involves the removal or capture of carbon from industrial processes or even directly from our atmosphere in order to make our planet livable. However, first, I will put my comments in proper context, because carbon capture is just one tool among many in our climate plan's broad tool box to cut emissions across Canada's economy. Our plan starts with putting a price on pollution. It also includes using regulatory investment and tax measures to incent the transition to cleaner options, like electric vehicles. The bottom line is that we are looking at all options, because despite wishful thinking in some quarters, there is no single, magical solution that will appear to resolve this existential challenge. Even clean energy sources such as wind and solar, while crucial, are not enough to get us to net zero. That is why we are encouraging all tools, including carbon capture technologies, which will be especially important for major pollution sources like the oil sands or chemical industries. Carbon capture technologies have been developing through most of the century, but they remain expensive and are only used on a relatively small scale. I will cite some promising examples in Canada shortly. However, first I want to make the point that our government is far from alone in supporting this innovation. Let us consider the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the one that came with a stark warning from the UN Secretary-General that without urgent action now, the planet is on a “fast track to...disaster”. The IPCC made clear that carbon capture technology is particularly important, and not just to get the planet closer to net zero. It also noted that even if the world reaches our net-zero 2050 objective, direct removal from the atmosphere may be needed to limit global warming. I will cite a comment from The Guardian newspaper by Robert Gross, director of the United Kingdom's Energy Research Centre. He said, “We will need not just net zero but to start to remove CO2 from the air. We cannot do one instead of the other, but we have reached the point where it is likely that humanity will need to do both to avoid dangerous climate change.” This illustrates how important it is for us to invest in carbon capture technology. The IPPC's position is echoed by other respected organizations. Just consider the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Its net-zero road map would require carbon capture to account for roughly 15% of global emission reductions. Another respected global voice on climate is the International Renewable Energy Agency. It has stated that even a very aggressive ramping up of renewables will not be sufficient. That is why it considers carbon capture essential. Finally, I will point out the Canadian Climate Institute. It also views carbon capture and removal as playing a potentially significant role in our net-zero pathway. This is why carbon capture is a part of our recently published 2030 emissions reduction plan. It is a blueprint that outlines the technology's economy-wide applications in its sector-by-sector path for Canada to reach our targets. The fact is, we believe that carbon capture can help tackle emissions from the toughest-to-abate but crucial sectors of Canada's economy, such as oil and gas and heavy industry. More importantly, it also opens the door to low-carbon pathways, such as hydrogen, green concrete and low-emissions power. Carbon capture also presents a multi-billion dollar market opportunity. In hydrogen alone, I note that Germany's ambassador recently described Canada as a potential hydrogen superpower. Carbon capture will play a key role in helping us produce clean hydrogen. As I indicated earlier, this is not just about potential. Canada has long been an innovation leader. In fact, Canada is already home to leading carbon capture companies, five of which made the 2022 Global Cleantech 100 list of innovative global clean-tech firms. We have to push harder, and that is why Canada is implementing measures that will help drive the carbon capture market here even further. Budget 2021, for instance, included $319 million to support research, development and demonstrations of carbon capture, use and storage technologies. Budget 2022 includes a proposed new investment tax credit for companies that invest in these projects. The credit is a key part of our government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization. This plan was designed after consultations with the public, stakeholders and the provinces and territories. It is intended to drive the growth of Canadian carbon capture, use and storage technologies in industries from steel and plastics to fuels and hydrogen. In addition, our government has been engaging with key partners and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive carbon capture strategy for Canada. We plan to release this strategy in the coming months. I indicated earlier that I would cite some real-world examples, and in doing so I will note that our government has worked arm in arm with the Alberta government and the private sector to make inroads in this area. One is the Alberta carbon trunk line capture and storage project, the world's largest of its kind. The Government of Canada is supporting the project with $30 million through the clean energy fund, as well as $33 million from the ecoENERGY technology initiative. Another success story is Shell Canada's Quest project. Since 2015, this project, which received early funding from Natural Resources Canada, has been reducing emissions at Shell's Scotford upgrader by 1.1 megatonnes per year. Quest remains one of the most successful carbon capture projects in the world. I would also draw members' attention to our $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund. It contributed $25 million to support Svante, a B.C. company developing carbon capture technology for industrial applications like cement and blue hydrogen. Canada's petroleum industry is one of the most innovative in the world. It found a way to extract oil from sand in northern Alberta and to tap wealth under the ocean floor in the treacherous North Atlantic. I believe carbon capture holds similar potential for world-class innovation, allowing Canada's economy to thrive by helping us deliver cleaner energy while driving toward our net-zero target. That is why I believe we need to continue to work on developing carbon capture, use and storage technologies in Canada, and it is why I am proud of the plan the government has to support this important innovation to get us to the net-zero 2050 plan.

1298 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

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

Mr. John Aldag

May/17/22 1:18:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work he does on our natural resources committee. He is a huge advocate for the oil and gas sector and has made many great contributions to our discussions about the transition we are making to green and clean technologies and a net-zero economy. To his question, through the investments we are making, we are trying to advance Canada's innovation so that we can be a leader on the global front. We want to be the most competitive and most innovative so that we can sell these technologies to help solve a global crisis. It is through the investments we are making, and that I hope we will continue to make, that we will be able to make the achievements and inroads that are needed. As far as funding goes, I will be advocating for it, as I think members across the House will be, to make sure the government delivers on the commitments we are making so that we have the investments to fuel the innovations we really need.

183 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/17/22 1:19:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I have some reservations. I do not think it is right to use science only when it serves one's purposes. A group of 400 academics wrote that carbon capture is not a good idea for the oil and gas sector. A number of experts told us in committee that carbon capture could meet the needs of cement factories or heavy industrial processes, but it is a pipe dream for the oil and gas sector. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with these 400 experts that carbon capture should apply only to very specific sectors but not the oil and gas sector.

114 words

Mr. John Aldag

May/17/22 1:20:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the aisle for his work on the natural resources committee. He is a huge advocate for the many files that we are working on at that committee. To his point, we need to look at the science and the evidence and to listen to the experts out there, but we also need to continue to push on innovation. It is something that Canada has demonstrated: that we have the know-how to solve world-class problems. Although there may be challenges right now with the technology on the kind of mass commercial scale we need in the oil and gas sector for carbon capture, I do not think we need to give up and throw our hands in the air and say it cannot be done. This is where government support for that continued innovation can happen. There are other experts who say that we can get there. It is going to take time and investments and collaboration across industries, and perhaps even countries, to land where we need to be. This is the sort of support we need and direction that our government is headed in.

197 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

May/17/22 1:21:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I appreciate the spirit of the motion and, for the most part, I also agree with it in substance. There is one particular point of contention that I will get to, but first I will start with where I agree. The motion notes that oil and gas companies are making record profits at the same time as Canadians are paying more than ever for gas at the pumps. We have seen Suncor's profits more than triple in a year. Canadian Natural Resources more than doubled its year-over-year first-quarter numbers, and Imperial Oil saw its best first quarter in 30 years. It goes on and on. The shortage of global crude oil, driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has led to significant new profit for these companies. In answer, the motion highlights the need to speed up our transition to clean energy and also to help Canadians struggling with the high cost of living. It seems reasonable enough, and there are many specific ways to accomplish these general goals. We could see additional financial support for clean energy infrastructure and additional support for skills training for the jobs we will increasingly rely upon. There are many ways to support Canadians in need, and I would highlight the need to deliver on the Canada disability benefit as one example. To pay for some of this, including skills training and clean energy infrastructure, I would have supported a call for a windfall tax on oil and gas profits. As the environment minister has rightly said recently, for example, these companies are making record profits and they should be investing some of them into ensuring that they have a future. Instead, the motion calls for the government to stop using Canadian taxpayers' money to subsidize and finance the oil and gas sector and to reinvest that money in the transition and in supporting struggling Canadians. Again, in general this is certainly worthy of support. The motion rightly calls out the public financing provided through Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada. Let us pause for a moment to delve into the work of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. It has acknowledged that federal financing via subsidies amounts to about $2 billion a year, but there is a very large sum that is contributed via public financing. In a recent scorecard ranking G20 levels of support provided to fossil fuels, Canada ranked last among OECD countries by providing the highest amount of support. The IISD estimate is that Canada provides an average of $13.2 billion in support for oil and gas every year via EDC, representing over 12% of the financing committed by that institution. About 30% of that financing goes toward domestic operations of Canadian oil and gas companies. That obviously needs to change. EDC, in its Canada account, has financed the government's acquisition and construction of TMX, which should also change and, frankly, should not have happened the way it has. It is impossible to see how TMX is economically feasible at this point, with the total project cost ballooning to well over $20 billion. Even back in December 2020, the PBO briefed parliamentarians and noted that the Trans Mountain expansion would not be profitable if we took additional climate action. Subsequently, there has been a lot of additional climate action, including much greater stringency around our carbon pricing. There is no clear explanation as to how the project is a worthwhile financial investment in a world that reduces emissions consistent with net-zero. It is past time we put a stop to public financing and, unfortunately, recently again, we have seen an additional $10-billion loan that is an effective subsidy in the form of protection against credit risk. If Canada expended the same sum toward renewable energy that we have and will expend on TMX, we would all be better off, including workers who will inevitably be affected by the global transition. Despite my frustration with public financing, including of TMX, it is impossible to ignore the progress we have made since 2015. When this government took office in 2015, projected 2030 emissions were 815 megatons. Fast forward to the first-ever emissions-reduction plan and, if all of the policies hold and if a future government does not roll them back, those projected 2030 emissions have moved from 815 megatons to 443 megatons. There is still more work to be done, including phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and addressing public financing. In our most recent platform, and in the mandate letters of the ministers, Canadians will see that we have committed to accelerate our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies from 2025 to 2023, and we have also committed to develop a plan to phase out public financing. It is not soon enough, but important nonetheless, to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations, consistent with our commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. We have also committed to a more stringent cap that I would say we take more seriously on oil and gas sector emissions. Where I part ways with the motion's sponsor is with respect to carbon capture utilization and storage. The motion casts the CCUS investment tax credit as a problematic fossil fuel subsidy by calling for the government to exclude oil and gas companies from the $2.6-billion budget allocation: a budget allocation that is over five years. The CCUS investment tax credit is not universally supported. There are some legitimate criticisms to consider and take seriously. At the same time, there are many thoughtful experts who support encouraging investment in this space. The Canadian version of the policy has rightly excluded enhanced oil recovery, such that eligible projects cannot be used to squeeze more oil out of the ground. According to the Grantham Institute, CCUS could be an essential technology for tackling climate change. The recent IPCC report includes a specific section on the emerging technology. The committee on climate change in the U.K., a model for our net-zero advisory body in a serious way, has called it “a vital technology essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the economy”. Carbon capture may not be a cure-all for the global climate challenge, but it has a major role to play in decarbonizing heavy industry. In Canada, where industrial emissions make up over a third of total emissions, it can play an even greater role than in other countries. Those are not my words. Those are the words of a research associate at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. The International Energy Agency, in its net-zero report of last year, notes that CCUS can facilitate the transition to net-zero C02 emissions: by tackling emissions from existing assets, providing a way to address emissions from some of the most challenging sectors; providing a cost-effective pathway to scale up low-carbon hydrogen production rapidly; and allowing for CO₂ removal from the atmosphere... This is again from the report: Government R and D spending needs to be increased and reprioritized. Critical areas such as electrification, hydrogen, bioenergy and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) today receive only around one‐third of the level of public R and D funding of the more established low‐carbon electricity generation and energy efficiency technologies. In that same report, in its 1.5° scenario, the IEA estimates that the world will still use about 25 million barrels per day, or a quarter of current usage. However, these are not for combustion purposes, but for non-combustion applications such as petrochemicals, lubricants, solvents, waxes, etc. The IEA forecasted the demand for natural gas in 2050 would be half of what it is today, again for non-combustion. Yes, unquestionably, we need to reduce fossil fuel use. Unquestionably, we need to remove public financing from the fossil fuel sector, especially as it relates to combustion, but we also need to ensure that the extraction and production of oil and gas, to the extent that it is going to continue, is net-zero. It will continue even up to 2050. I want to dismiss objections here. Many experts, led by Canada research chair and University of Victoria professor Christina Hoicka, said: Deploying CCUS at any climate-relevant scale, carried out within the short time frame we have to avert climate catastrophe without posing substantial risks to communities on the front lines of the buildout, is a pipe dream... Perhaps they will be proven right. It may be that the technology ultimately fails, and that the $2.6 billion in public financing over the next five years goes with it. My own view is that we need to take every moon shot that we can, given the scale of the crisis. We are doing so much, and this is another arrow in our quiver. While the policy is designed for clues, and enhanced oil recovery ensures that companies invest a significant amount of their own capital and will require anyone who claims the policy to complete a climate-related financial disclosure report, I can also appreciate the frustration when federal funds are encouraging investment from companies that are currently flush with cash, even if the investment is for a worthwhile end. For me, the objection that lands most seriously is that a CCUS-specific tax credit pushes companies to invest in that particular technology over others that may well be more deserving of support and it may distort investment decisions away from other decisions that make more sense, whether company-specific, sector-specific or economy-wide. I think there are challenges we want to take seriously, but when it comes to federal support for tackling climate change, we have the carbon pricing regime, our effort to phase out coal-fired electricity, our efforts to reduce methane emissions, including increasingly stringent policies to do so and, finally, our effort in the most recent platform and in mandate letters to cap oil and gas sector emissions. We have our investments: historic investments in public transit, and on and on. There is so much that we are doing and so much more, of course, that we need to do, but emphasizing and battling around the CCUS is, I think, misplaced. Absolutely, we should address public financing. We should do some more seriously and criticism is warranted there, but let us not fight about the CCUS investment tax credit, which is encouraging investment in a space that sorely needs that investment. To close, I would just say that if the motion were amended to remove that specific element, it would be worthy of my support.

1793 words

All Topics

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

May/17/22 1:31:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I guess I question some of the assertions he is making, given the $20 billion his government has put into building the TMX pipeline because there was no case for it in the private sector. This is to export oil, which will not be counted as part of Canada's net-zero emissions. The Canadian Energy Regulator estimates that the amount of oil being taken out of the ground and exported in Canada in 2050 will be equivalent to what it was in 2019. I do not see how the Liberals can talk about an emissions cap when they are actually talking about an increase in production of $1.2 million barrels a day, from a sector whose oil sands are considered to have the highest carbon footprint on the planet. How does he justify TMX, exports and the fact that the Liberals are looking to have more than a million barrels a day coming out of the ground, right up to 2050?

174 words

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

May/17/22 1:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not going to justify federal investment in TMX. I am not going to justify EDC's role in financing TMX and other fossil fuel infrastructure. What I will emphasize, though, is the importance of the overall emissions reduction plan and the serious climate action that we have seen over the last six and a half years. This is such critical action that climate experts overwhelmingly endorsed the Liberal plan in the last election. As an example, Andrew Weaver, the former B.C. Green Party leader and climate scientist, called the recent emissions reduction plan tabled just last month, an “outstanding plan”, saying “Canada [has reclaimed] international leadership on climate file.” There are reasons for criticism, but overwhelmingly, I think there are reasons for optimism.

132 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/17/22 1:33:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the conversation around carbon capture and underground storage. As the member may know, in Estevan, Saskatchewan, this whole process, the very first in the world, was developed, and it was done with coal, which is the hardest to function with. Since its opening, 4,402,000,073 tonnes of carbon dioxide have been stored underground just from that one location. Now the knowledge is there and the innovation has been done, so to go forward and do this in other areas of resources will cost far less. I just do not understand. I would ask the member to clarify for me why, in light of the facts that the reality is the world will still need oil for the next, as they say, 20, 30 or 40 years, and the best product, the most ethical and clean, is in Canada, why would we not want to draw what still exists from oil wells, rather than increase carbon emissions by creating more wells and get more oil from other sources than what is already there?

179 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 73