44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 17, 2022 10:00AM
- May/17/22 11:11:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if, and only if, the Liberal government has good economists, then it did a cost-benefit benefit analysis of its investments, whether in capture and storage or in the oil industry through its Crown corporations. What about the cost of inaction and the consequences of climate change, which are quantifiable and priced in real money?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:11:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are making investments where we need to for our economy, but also for the environment.
That is what we have talked about, that is what we are doing, that is what shows in our work. For example, currently a company in Windsor, here in Canada, is starting to manufacture batteries for all of North America. That is what we need. It is good for the economy and good for our environment.
74 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 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:30:58 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there are many tragedies caused by firearms. That is precisely why we want to take real action and why we are doing more.
Last year, the CACP seized a record number of firearms, and this is partly due to the federal government's investments at the border. All that the Conservatives did was oppose these investments. It makes no sense.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:36:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is rare to see the member for Winnipeg North so out of sorts. He was so out of sorts that he had to read notes, because his government has forced him to say that the oil subsidies are investments in the environment.
In committee, the oil companies told us that they needed public funding because they do not have the means to pay for their own investments.
Does the member for Winnipeg North agree with the oil companies' assertion that they are too poor to make their own investments and they need money? In my opinion, that money should be invested in health and in seniors.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
