44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:12:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the motion by the hon. member for Victoria is not only timely and important, but very reassuring.
As I read the member's motion, I found much common ground across the aisle, including a shared recognition that energy security is ultimately about climate action. How so? The International Energy Agency, or the IEA, defines “energy security” as the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price. As the motion implies, if we want to secure an uninterrupted and stable energy supply, we have to accelerate the switch to lower-emitting energy sources, and we have to do so in ways that are affordable to Canadians. Otherwise, we risk exacerbating existing equity issues and losing some of the political will that has accumulated to drive climate action.
Therefore, we are clearly on the same page with the member opposite when she talks about the need to invest in renewable sources of energy and support both energy security and affordability. In fact, that is a central focus of the 2030 emissions reduction plan that our government released at the end of March. It is a comprehensive mix of new investments, subsidies and incentives that build on the more than $100 billion we have already committed to climate action since coming to office in 2015.
The plan also includes hard caps on emissions from every economic sector, as well as stronger environmental regulations and new sales mandates for electric vehicles, all of them aimed, ultimately, at making Canada a net-zero nation by 2050.
Put another way, our 2030 emissions reduction plan is about protecting the environment in ways that actually unlock new economic opportunities. It is about cutting pollution and creating good jobs. Where needed, it is about providing training, skills, development and other support to workers and communities, so that clean growth works for everyone in every sector of our economy and every region of our country.
Investing in renewable sources of energy is a key part of our plan. There is simply no way to reach our climate targets while ensuring our economy remains strong and globally competitive without a sustainable, low-carbon energy sector. Frankly, renewables have been part of our climate action plan since we sent our first delegation to COP 2015, which was just weeks after we formed government in 2015.
Our level of commitment to investing in renewable sources of energy has only grown from there. Just last year, we launched our $1.5-billion clean fuels fund to support the next generation of fuel production. With this new fund, we are supporting feasibility and front-end engineering and design studies, helping to establish biomass supply chains, creating new markets for waste from forestry and agriculture, and developing essential codes and standards, ensuring that new technologies can enter the market reliably. Best of all, we expect to create more than 35,000 direct and indirect jobs through this fund and leverage an additional $3.5 billion in other public and private investments over the next five years, all while helping to reduce our emissions by up to 12 megatonnes.
Budget 2022 further builds on that and is highlighted by a world-leading $15-billion Canada growth fund and an expansion and extension of the low-carbon economy fund, with a further $2.2 billion. Other measures specifically advance our capacity to produce renewable energy. Electricity is a case in point. We have committed to a net-zero electricity system by 2035, and our new federal budget includes further investments to get us there. They include $250 million over four years to support pre-development activities of clean electricity projects of national significance, such as interprovincial electricity transmission projects and small modular reactors. These projects build on what our government is already doing to advance similar work on the Atlantic loop and prairie link projects.
There are also $600 million over seven years for the smart renewables and electrification pathways program to support additional renewable electricity and grid modernization projects, $2.4 million in 2022-23 to establish a pan-Canadian grid council, which would provide external advice in support of national and regional electricity planning, and $25 million to establish regional strategic initiatives to work with provinces, territories and relevant stakeholders to develop net-zero energy plans.
As we invest in renewables, we are also helping Canadians to use less energy, such as with the Canada greener homes grant that was launched in May of last year. It offers grants of up to $5,000 to help Canadians finance resiliency and energy efficient retrofits in their homes. The program has proved to be very popular, with over 150,000 homeowners applying through the national portal and another 50,000 coming in through our co-delivery partners of Quebec and Nova Scotia.
Of course, carbon capture, use and storage also figure prominently in our emissions reduction plan and our 2022 budget. Carbon capture technologies have also been a part of Canada's plan since the turn of the century, when an international team of scientists descended on an oil field in Saskatchewan to study the feasibility of injecting carbon dioxide into a geologic formation. Almost two decades later, carbon capture has emerged from the laboratory as a commercially viable option, but the sheer scale of these projects demands continued collaboration to reduce costs, which means that we cannot afford to be excluding potential partners as we try to achieve an economy of scale with the technology. That is where I part ways with the member opposite and her motion. We need all hands on deck to fight climate change. With our abundance of natural resources and skilled labour, Canada is well positioned to lead global growth in CCUS as it supports our investments in renewables.
The oil and gas industry, which contributes 26% of Canada's overall emissions but also directly employs over 70,000 people, should not and will not be excluded. That said, it is our intention that the tax credit cannot be used for enhanced oil recovery. Simply put, the tax credit would be an effective way to further mobilize substantial private capital towards clean technologies in energy, driving down costs and encouraging widespread market adoption.
When it comes to climate change, I think colleagues will agree that there is no magic bullet. We need to use every tool in the tool box, and we need every partner we can get to help us achieve our goals. We have the ambition, the know-how and the plan to build a bright, healthy future for everyone.
1096 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:41:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us come back to the topic at hand. In his speech, my colleague mentioned that, although the oil industry is heavily subsidized, it also brings in a lot of revenue and that that money is used for other things. The figure he mentioned was $20 billion a year.
Did he forget about the $10 billion that we are paying into the industry? Did he forget about the $10 billion invested in Trans Mountain? Did he forget about the $2.4 billion the government just promised for carbon capture, a technique that we know does not work? Most importantly, did he forget about how much climate change is costing? We only have to think about what happened in British Columbia last year.
At some point, the government needs to start getting serious and move forward in the right direction. It needs to stop name-calling and saying that there are dishonest people.
I understand that members work for their constituents. We must continue to put money into those ridings as we are doing now, but that money should be used for the energy transition. Is it not time to do that?
198 words
- 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 12:20:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague from Winnipeg North believes himself when he speaks. I really wonder about that.
With regard to investments in the energy transition, let us not forget the much-touted $17‑billion green recovery plan. The government is investing $17 billion for its entire green recovery plan, but it is investing $30 billion in a single oil project, Trans Mountain.
Your green recovery plan includes the hydrogen strategy. You want to make hydrogen with the oil and gas industry, with strategies—
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:34:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc is treading a very dangerous line with its coalition partners in blue. They are at opposite ends. I point that out because, quite frankly, it is interesting.
We have the Conservatives who say, “Build more. Do more for oil.” Then we have the Bloc, which seems to recognize that the oil industry and the energy industry as a whole have no place in Canada.
Would the member not acknowledge that there is an energy sector that plays an important role in Canadian society in terms of jobs and so forth, and that within this budget is a green transition, which has historical amounts of money so that we can in fact be respectful and work towards a healthier planet?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:35:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I picked up on some serious contradictions.
He concluded his speech with the assertion that we should not challenge the $2.4 billion set aside for carbon capture. However, during his speech, he said that, from a technical perspective, carbon capture may not be feasible, as many experts have said, but that we need to roll the dice anyway. I have not seen a whole lot of $2.4 billion die rolls in my time.
Does my colleague agree that it would be much more responsible to invest that money in clean energy, such as green hydrogen, wind energy and hydroelectricity, which are all low-carbon power sources that have proven their worth?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:27:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the greedy executives are laughing it up. They are sucking us dry at the pump while making record profits. They are taking even more taxpayers' money through federal subsidies. Glug-glug go the gluttons. Every new coin they see is more golden than the last.
Suncor made $3 billion in profits last quarter. These fat cats do not need public money. Rather than fattening them up any further, why will the federal government not give that money to the less fortunate or put it towards the energy transition?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:30:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I have two pieces of good news for him.
We are investing record amounts in the energy transition, more than has ever been spent in the history of Canada, more than every G7 and G20 country. We are investing more in the green transition as part of our economic recovery plan than any other G20 country.
We committed to eliminating the fossil fuel subsidy by 2023, two years sooner than all our G20 partners.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:45:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that removing the tax would be passed on to consumers. The House should be focused on getting Vladimir Putin out of Ukraine to restabilize energy markets. Canadians know that gas prices are higher because of the illegal war in Ukraine.
While the other side wants to play politics, we are focused on affordability, the CCB, child care and putting money in the pockets of Canadians. That is our job. The Conservatives can scream all they want. We are doing the hard work.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when we left off for question period, I was talking about how Canada is uniquely positioned to become a renewable energy superpower. During the natural resources committee's study on critical minerals, we learned that Canada is the only nation in the western hemisphere with all of the minerals and metals needed to produce the advanced batteries, electric motors and wind turbine generators that will be needed in the low-carbon economy. The International Energy Agency's net-zero energy scenario estimates that the global value for select critical minerals will grow substantially over the next two decades, reaching today's level for coal market value of about $400 billion U.S. by 2040.
The opportunity is there for Canada to both reach net zero and prosper, but we cannot continue down the path that Liberal and Conservative governments have chosen when it comes to spending money on the oil and gas sector. Canada currently spends more per capita on those subsidies than any other developed country. We cannot keep paying companies to clean up their own pollution.
New Democrats know that public funds are best spent supporting the transition to renewable energy and helping Canadians struggling with the high cost of living, rather than on profitable oil and gas companies. Instead of spending billions on new oil pipelines, we should be building hydrogen infrastructure for heavy transportation hubs, stronger provincial interties to distribute clean electricity across Canada, and electric vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing, and we should be training and employing workers now working in the oil and gas sector in these new opportunities. They are opportunities that will last into the future.
This is where the puck is going.
We need to stop providing those subsidies to oil and gas companies, which delay climate action, and instead spend that money on climate action. Increasingly, we need to spend money on climate adaptation, since the effects of global warming are locked in. We have to talk about the cost of climate inaction, and that cost is rising every year.
Right now, Canadian governments, businesses and citizens spend more than $5 billion annually to fix the destruction caused by increased fires and floods. That is predicted to rise to over $40 billion by 2050. At the moment, the federal government puts up just over $300 million of that cost. It is past time that we faced up to the rising costs of climate change.
We must realign the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund to spend more on adaptation, so that we protect communities from disaster rather than rebuild them after the fact. Last year, British Columbia communities such as Lytton, Princeton, Merritt and many more, were badly impacted by fire and floods. Small communities such as these do not have the monetary resources to rebuild under present funding formulas.
We must have a clear strategy for the future that faces the facts of climate change, both limiting the extent of future changes and dealing with the changes that have already taken place. Canada's future is very bright, but first we must invest in that future, not in the past.
521 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:19:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, obviously, the price of gas is at the top of a lot of Canadians' minds right now. It has gone up a tremendous amount. It has probably gone up $1 a litre since the war in Ukraine has changed the world markets.
What I am looking for is a future that we are moving toward and planning for, which will create an energy market that is not so sensitive to world events. I am looking for an energy future where Canada is creating its own energy and not subject to world prices for oil.
The Conservatives are always talking about using Canadian oil to fuel Canada, but I can bet that if we had that system right now, Canadian oil companies would not want the Conservatives to say that we will cut the price of oil in half because we control oil in Canada. We need a system that is good for the planet and for consumers, and we have to plan for that.
166 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 4:03:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canada has made the ambitious target of reducing emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40%, relative to current levels, by 2030, and is in the process right now of developing regulations to cap emissions and have them steadily reduced to net zero by 2050. I think we would all agree on the need to reduce emissions, but as we develop more stringent regulations, there is a risk that jobs and investment could move to countries that have less stringent regulations but have deposits of energy.
Would the member for Burnaby South want Canada to work with industry to reduce emissions and keep jobs in Canada, or would he rather that emissions be eliminated in Canada simply by eliminating production and we move them to another country?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:24:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge. As usual, it is a privilege to rise this afternoon to speak to the NDP opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Victoria.
In principle, the motion has three elements. It recognizes that the price of gas is high, at more than $2 a litre in some regions in the country, and that that is affecting affordability across the country. The motion points out that energy companies are making profits, especially with the high price of basic energy products. The motion calls for the elimination of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage that was presented in the budget by the Minister of Finance and for the savings from that measure to be reinvested into helping Canadians.
I will talk about the motion, but I will also use my time to talk about the broader issue of affordability and the energy transition in Canada and in the world.
I represent a rural riding where a good number of my constituents do not have access to public transit. This conversation on affordability and the ability to use public transit for work and pleasure is an important public policy concern.
As far as affordability is concerned, I would like to share with my colleagues that my father was a truck driver and my mother is an administrative assistant. We were a low-income family. One of the reasons I decided to join the Liberal Party and run as an MP is because of the work this government has done to support low- and middle-income families. I want to give some examples of how our government has done that since taking office in 2015: We created the Canada child care benefit, enhanced old age security, reversed the Conservative plan to change the eligibility age from 67 to 65, and strengthened the guaranteed income supplement.
We also introduced national child care, and we had the opportunity to see that rolled out across the country. That is something that this government has focused on because it helps support affordability for families paying for child care costs. It is also an important economic driver. It had been talked about for a long time, but it was this government that stepped up, showed leadership and made it happen across the country.
I was not part of it, but from 2015-19, in the 42nd Parliament, the first thing this government did was to lower taxes for lower and middle-income Canadians and increase them for the wealthiest one percent in the country. Indeed, this government has invested significantly in the Canadian housing benefit, trying to support individuals with rental costs and their ability to put a roof over their heads.
I could go on with the programs I am proud of from this side. That is not to say that all issues are solved or that affordability writ large is taken care of, but I am proud of the record on this side of the House, and of the plans and programs we have introduced because they are making a difference in the lives of Canadians across the country.
Let us talk about the inflation issue because it is an important piece to raise. I would suggest that from where I sit in the House, there is no one silver bullet solution to inflation. In fact, history has shown that to be the case, but let us first examine the reasons why we are seeing inflation across the economy and recognize that this is not just a Canadian problem. This is being recognized across the world, in Europe and in the United States. Indeed, the inflation we are experiencing is challenging and impacting us in Canada, but it is actually lower than in other jurisdictions around the world.
It is happening, in part, because of the war in Ukraine. We heard, in question period, the Associate Minister of Finance talk about the importance of supporting Ukraine and being able to support them in their fight against Russia. The war and the conflict is having cascading impacts that are creating inflationary pressure around the world. We have to remind Canadians that this is being perpetuated by the Russian Federation, namely, Vladimir Putin.
There has also been a supply chain disruption, and it has been talked about at great length. The pandemic has created those challenges. They are not easily reversed. I would also submit that the changing geopolitical situation will also have reverberations on how our supply chains have traditionally operated prior to the pandemic and, indeed, prior to the war in Ukraine.
On government spending, governments around the world, including this one, were compelled to step up to support their citizens and make sure that they were taken care of. We were asking individuals to do their part to stop the spread of COVID-19 until we had access to a vaccine and until we had the work that had to done by the scientific community. This government makes no qualms about the fact that we stepped up for Canadians. Eight dollars out of every 10 were provided by this government. That was to help provinces and territories, municipal governments, businesses, and individuals.
Undoubtedly, the global community stepping up to help support citizens put additional liquidity into the market. I think that has led, in part, to some of the inflationary pressures we have seen.
On the aging workforce, I think this is something we have not discussed to the extent that it should be discussed in the House. We have labour challenges. We have heard that in large detail, in the 44th Parliament, about some of the challenges.
That is not just Canada. That is the western world, as we have a large baby boomer demographic that is making its way to retirement. That is creating challenges in employment, which has, as well, an inflationary pressure on wages. In some cases, that can be really important for lower wages, in terms of lower hourly wages, but it is undoubtedly putting on some of that inflationary pressure. That is part of what we have seen.
As we can see, it is nuanced. There is not one single thing we can point to. It is a variety of circumstances that have presented themselves for a long time and, indeed, in the last couple of years to where we find ourselves.
The question becomes how best to address it. History suggests that it is not easy. Do we spend more money to give individual households some of the affordability measures that they might need? Of course, I think most of us would agree that, in principle, this sounds great. History has shown that when the economy is hot, providing additional support to households, notwithstanding that we want to do that, in some cases, can actually reverberate some of the inflationary pressure that we have seen, particularly when there is a lot of liquidity in the market, with money supply.
On interest rates, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates and, indeed, that is seen as one way, from an economic theory. If we raise interest rates, it can have a cooling effect on the economy to bring inflation down, but that has an impact on the affordability element for individuals who might hold debt, in terms of their monthly mortgage payments and some of their bills on that side.
I guess, at the end of the day, what I would say is that the question of inflation and affordability is an important one. There is no easy solution, but when I look at the text of this motion, which is talking about taking away a program that the government has introduced for our energy sector to reduce emissions, for us to able to meet our emissions reduction plan, which was introduced a couple months ago by our Minister of Environment, I do not think that this is the best public policy approach.
I agree that we need to have important conversations about what the government can do to support affordability and to support Canadians who are having challenging times, but taking away a program that is designed to incentivize the energy sector to reduce emissions and ensure that we are competitive heading into 2050 is the wrong approach.
1391 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:36:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in a world where we are going to see a smaller role for oil and gas, and I think the International Energy Agency has said that, my thoughts are we actually need to work with the Canadian energy sector to make sure its emission intensity per barrel is some of the lowest in the world. That comes back to the CCUS and how important that is.
We also, undoubtedly, need to make a transition. I am just trying to be realistic in that I believe this product will still be important. Canada is the fourth-largest oil producer in the world and the fifth-largest for gas. How can we work to reduce emissions so Canada still has a role in the energy that will still be needed?
To the geopolitical piece, our role right now in the world has to be engaging with our allies to find opportunities to provide energy security, which would include natural gas in the short term. Longer term, it will be hydrogen and working on critical minerals to support energy transition. It is a really important question, and I hope we can continue with it here in the House.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:39:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here and it is wonderful to be speaking to this opposition day motion brought forth by the member for Victoria. I would like to start off by framing this opposition motion the way I view it.
When I think of a trifecta and of the energy industry where we are, both domestically and globally, and how it relates to affordability and where gas prices are today, I think of three things. I think of energy security, which means security of supply and also security of work. I think of energy affordability, which means being able to afford the energy we buy. We have seen the prices of commodities rise globally due to supply chain bottlenecks and the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Putin's regime, which imperils energy affordability. Then, we talk about decarbonization. I think of energy security, energy affordability and then a longer-term transition where we have decarbonization. That is important because, when we think about it, Canada is an energy leader.
This morning, I spent some time researching what I wanted to say this afternoon. I went to the Natural Resources Canada website and looked at the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”. There is some great information out there for policy wonks and people who want to understand just how important both the renewable and non-renewable energy industries are to Canada and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. According to the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”, produced on the Natural Resources website, direct to indirect jobs total 845,000 folks. These are hard-working middle-class Canadians who earn their livelihoods from this industry. That is very important to understand.
The investments that are taking place, just on the renewable side or clean energy, have totalled roughly $80 billion to $100 billion every year for the past several years. I was looking at the numbers: the total was $92.1 billion in 2021. That is wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro, solar and tidal. There is this industry in Canada that we need to be extremely proud of, and that I am very proud to support and to speak about on this opposition day motion, from which Canadians are earning their livelihoods. People are putting their kids in school. They are paying for their hockey lessons and swimming lessons, and we are here to support them.
The opposition day motion talks about ending any sort of financial support to the fossil fuel sector. Our budget that we produced states, I believe, that by 2023 there will be no more direct financial support provided to the energy sector, when we talk about the non-renewable side. When we think about energy security, we must think about Canada and areas such as the western Canada sedimentary basin. I know some of my colleagues on the opposite side come from these areas, and I am from British Columbia originally. There are literally tens of thousands of kilometres of pipeline in that area that are moving gas everywhere in North America. In fact, it is being exported via LNG sites in the United States to Europe at this time and helping our European allies. We need to consider that. It is easy to criticize an industry when one thinks it is fun to do so, and I use that word carefully. I do not. There are 845,000 Canadians tied to this industry.
In reference to the carbon capture tax credit, the third pillar I spoke about was decarbonization. With respect to decarbonization, to me the story is to lower greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and globally. We do not want leakage. We will do that in a manner where we work with stakeholders, including industry. Industry has these roughly 845,000 Canadians who earn their livelihoods from the energy industry. That, to me, is what is called “responsible leadership”. That, to me, is doing the right thing and moving this needle and yardstick in the right direction.
In fact, in our budget, and I look forward to seeing the full details in the fall economic statement, we will introduce a new tax credit for investment in clean technology of 30% for zero-emission technologies and battery storage; in clean hydrogen, which is very exciting; and in blue hydrogen, which I have been learning a lot about in the past few weeks. It is very important.
What I think of as the three pillars are energy security, energy affordability and decarbonization. We are on a track that I am proud of, the emissions reduction plan, which is under the umbrella of Bill C-12: the net-zero accountability act. It is accountable, it is tangible and it lays out a framework so that we can decarbonize our economy and, yes, lower greenhouse gas emissions.
To my hon. colleagues in the NDP and the member for Victoria, when I think about affordability, yes, gas prices are absolutely high. Yes, they are absolutely pinching Canadians. We must demonstrate empathy. I know that. I live in the suburbs outside of Toronto, and everyone in my neighbourhood drives two or three vehicles. They have to get their kids to school and sports and they have to drive them home. We understand that and I understand that, but inflationary forces, be they supply chain bottlenecks or how refineries operate, which would take another hour to explain on the refinery margins part, fracking and NAC and all that stuff, and what has happened with Russia's barbaric invasion of Ukraine have driven up prices across the board. Even the Europeans have reached out by saying they need more gas. That is the energy security component.
On the affordability component for my hon. colleague for Victoria, I think about the Canada child benefit that we introduced in 2015, which all parties voted against, including the New Democratic Party. It benefits the residents of my riding in the amount of over $60 million a month. Almost $7,000 can help a family with one child earning below a certain amount. We returned the old age security and GIS eligibility to age 65. In June and July, over three million Canadians will be receiving a 10% increase in their old age security payments, bringing it up to $766. That is how to help on the affordability side, particularly at a time when inflationary forces are elevated, and we must be cognizant of that.
For seniors who are concerned about how they are going to pay their dental bills, we are going to go down that route, just as we got national child care done after the Conservatives scrapped it many years ago. It is going to benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast and allow for greater and higher labour force participation rates by parents. It will be a boost to our labour supply and good for our productive capacity. We will do the same thing on dental care. We will ensure seniors and individuals who do not have insurance or a copay will benefit from that. Our government has been there for Canadians, and we need to continue to be there.
On the recovery from COVID, as I said, we were there for Canadians and we had their backs. We must work with all industries as we come out of COVID, which we have been, and we must keep our eye on the ball that climate change continues to be the transition in front of us, independent of what is happening in other parts, because that is where the world is going.
The auto sector right now is investing roughly $515 billion in transforming itself into what I call auto to electric vehicles. That is something we are participating in, and we are at the table. It is important that we remain focused on that front.
When I read the opposition motion that talks about carbon capture, utilization and storage and other forces at play, I ask myself what we are doing in the economy that allows us to decarbonize, which is an element of working with stakeholders and listening, and at the same time making life more affordable for Canadians.
There are things we are doing on the housing front, such as providing 100,000 new homes and doubling housing construction, allowing Canadians to save for a home with the first-time homebuyers' investment vehicle, getting the froth out of the housing market by ending blind bidding and speculation, and banning foreign purchases.
On the affordability front, we are doing what is right for Canadians not only for today, but for the long term. I am so proud of the $10-a-day day care national child care plan modelled after la belle province that is going help residents in my riding because, frankly, it costs $1,500 to $2,000 for a family to put a child in day care in the city of Vaughan and York Region. Those are after-tax dollars, and we are going to help them.
1508 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:51:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am completely and utterly for innovation within the oil and gas industry that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As we continue to earn revenues from this sector and as we continue to export this product to markets that need it, we are talking about energy security and the North American energy markets. They are very integrated, and we work together with our partners, but I continue to see innovation as being crucial, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions across this beautiful country we call home.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:53:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, 845,000 hard-working Canadians go to work every day in the energy sector in Canada. They are hard-working folks. They do what is right for their families, and they try to put some money away for the future of their kids. We need to continue to support them. The energy industry is going to be with us for many years to come, and we need to make sure, as the energy transition moves along, that we have its back.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:54:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said to the member for Kitchener, very clearly, carbon capture and storage is one tool we will utilize in working with industry and stakeholders. I would like to remind the hon. member that we put $4.4 billion in home energy retrofits and loan and grant programs that Canadians are utilizing today.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
