SoVote

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

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

May/17/22 1:35:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the best argument is around opportunity costs and saying we should invest this money elsewhere, but my point is that there are many experts who do support CCUS technology, and when we look at the scale of the challenge, we should be examining and embracing every single opportunity to address climate change and reduce emissions. CCUS is one such option. We should not ignore it, and we definitely should not undermine it.

74 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/17/22 3:49:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, families in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford right now, when they are filling up their vehicles, are looking at those eye-watering prices, and then they read the news and hear about the billions of dollars of profits that oil companies are making. Then, to add insult to injury, they learn that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are directly subsidizing those companies, especially in unproven technology. I have a very clear question for my hon. colleague: Does she not agree that this is precisely the wrong time to continue subsidizing oil companies, not only because of the climate danger, but because of the pressure that working families are feeling? Is it not time to directly invest those dollars, instead, into the pockets of working families to help them out and give them a break? I want to hear a clear answer from my Liberal colleague on putting that money directly into working families' pockets through an increase in the GST credit.

163 words

Context: House Hansard - 73 - May/17/22

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

May/17/22 5:25:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am really happy to participate in this debate. It is hard to know where to start with this motion because, to be kind, it makes very little sense. The first thing we talk about is record profits or profits. The New Democrats talk about this as if it is something terrible or dirty. How dare a company make a profit? The thing they always have difficulty with, as I do not think there are very many business people in that caucus, is that companies sometimes make profits, yes, and in other years they do not. Profit is what enables companies to invest in things like technology and CCUS. The problem is that right now we have a global search for investment, so we have to compete here in Canada with the investment opportunities being offered all around the world, in particular with CCUS. What is the alternative? This is where the New Democrats and the Liberals are together on everything. They want to shut down all kinds of development in this country so that they can say they balanced and lowered our carbon emissions. However, guess what? The demand for oil is not going anywhere. The demand for other products in the energy industry is not going anywhere either. Guess what happens. These companies go to other parts of the world to supply that demand. How do they do that? They do it in countries where the environmental standards are lower and where they do not have to worry about their carbon emissions, so we end up with greenhouse gases increasing. Why has so much industry moved to China? It is because it uses coal-fired energy, which is terrible for greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than trying to stop all of these projects here in this country, why do we not look at making Canada an energy superpower with low-carbon emissions? That is what investments in things like CCUS are going to do. Otherwise, oil and gas production, mineral exploration and anything else will go into higher-intensity production per barrel and per kilogram around the world. The last time I checked, we do not have a carbon dome over Canada. We are not protected by exporting carbon emissions to China or other countries around the world. This ideological approach actually harms the country. We lose investments in businesses and industry, investments that create good-paying jobs and that allow companies to make profits. Here is what the NDP often forgets: Profits lead to taxes and taxes fund the social services we have in this country. Taxes fund everything. Corporations have to be profitable in order for us as a country to have tax revenue to provide the services we have in this country. Why the New Democrats are so unhappy that there are profits in the oil and gas sector I do not know. The profits and taxes from the oil and gas sector have funded so much across this country, and somehow they pretend they do not. It is terrible. The New Democrats talk about the record oil profits of those terrible companies, but they are paying loads of taxes that provide the social safety net in this country. It is completely irresponsible to say there should be no CCUS in this country for oil and gas. What would that do? As I have said before, it would dramatically reduce oil and gas in this country. The New Democrats would say that is great; that is what we want to do, except the demand does not go anywhere. Rather, it just shifts to other countries that will not worry about their carbon emissions and may not worry about other environmental standards. Canada cannot go to the dark ages of investment that this NDP motion is trying to take us to. The motion has to be opposed. The cognitive dissonance the NDP has that somehow stopping all oil and gas production in Canada will solve the problem does not make any sense and does not work. Let us vote against this motion.

677 words

All Topics