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 11:07:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very interested in having my hon. colleague explain to me the fact that there was no business case for TMX. The public was told to buy it for $4.7 billion. Then it was $17.3 billion. Now there is another $10 billion on top of that in loans. That is public money to export and expand oil production. That oil production of an extra 800,000 or a million barrels a day goes offshore and does not count in Canada's emissions.
My hon. colleague said this is a global issue, and I totally agree with her. Would she not agree that it does not matter where the oil is burned, as it is still affecting the planet? If we have 2025 as a target to stop increasing production, why is the government using taxpayers' money to export oil to be burned in other jurisdictions, which will not be counted on its register?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 11:35:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I never would have accused the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay of having been a Liberal until recently, when he made that dirty deal with the Prime Minister to continue to drive up gasoline prices and follow the path of Kathleen Wynne, who was trying to shut down the oil and gas and resource sectors, while investing billions of dollars in these concepts of green energy that never came to fruition. The money was wasted in Ontario. The taxes went up to pay for those wasted experiments, and Ontarians still have to rely on traditional energy sources.
However, that is exactly what the NDP suggests. As a matter of fact, not only is the oil and gas sector an important investor in our communities, our governments and all the rest of it, but it is also one of the largest investors in clean tech in the country. The unique difference between the oil and gas sector and government investment in clean tech is that the oil and gas sector invests in clean tech that actually results in something beneficial for our communities, whereas there is waste in the government spending on these fronts.
197 words
- 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 11:48:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is the first time I have used that word in the House. I was wondering if it was a usable word in the House or a three-letter word that disguised a four-letter word. Thank you for the clarification.
Yes, the information being fomented by Oil Change International is a lie. I will repeat that in the House, because it is the truth.
Let us go back to the analysis and look at the real numbers. I have been looking at the oil and gas industry and how much it has contributed to Canada over the past 21 years, which is $505 billion. That is more than half a trillion dollars it has given in economic rent to governments across Canada. That $505 billion is even a number in the real Liberal world, when it runs its deficits. Let us look at what that buys. How much health care does that buy? How much schooling and old age security does that buy? That buys the lifestyle Canadians have enjoyed for decades here, thanks to a prosperous natural resource industry led by Canada's oil and gas industry. The GDP number I have here is $128 billion, and $120 billion is our trade surplus in the oil and gas industry. That is balanced by about $30 billion of imports, so it is about a $90-billion surplus we are talking about for this industry, and 522,000 jobs.
I know the New Democrats would like to see those 522,000 workers have their legs cut out from under them and not be able to provide for their families, but I do not think they understand the impact that has on families, because the impact it has on families—
292 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:06:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the mischievous member for Mirabel.
What to say about this motion?
First, I will tell my NDP colleagues that the Bloc Québécois will support their motion, since putting an end to subsidies for fossil fuels is something we have long defended.
When it comes to the issue of oil and gas in Canada, it seems to me that many stakeholders become irrational, so irrational that it feels like this has to do with culture or identity. I do not want to play the “us and them” game, but everyone is familiar with the two solitudes. Many Canadians identify with the gas and oil industry. I could compare that with guns, in the United States, which I see as a symbol of a certain right-wing identity. In Canada, oil is a symbol of a certain Canadian identity. Consider what happened in the last Parliament, and I will not hide the fact that I was blown away. A motion moved by the Conservatives stated that oil is irreplaceable and that we should set aside a day to celebrate it.
The first time I sat in the House and heard some of my colleagues shouting “build a pipeline”, I was taken aback. As a Quebecker, I wondered whether I should be shouting “build hydro towers”. Really, I was not sure what to do. I will go further. On many of my Conservative colleagues’ phones and even on their pins, I see the famous slogan “I love oil and gas”. On my computer, I have a Quebec flag. I admit that I do not feel as invested in the gas and oil sector.
More recently, in March if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Abbotsford said during an opposition day that we should cut gas taxes by 5%. I think that he must be biting his tongue today, since it really is not a good idea to cut taxes by 5% when oil companies are making record profits, as I will show later. However, I do not blame the Conservatives, because at least they are doing it openly. When I hear a Conservative give a speech on the oil and gas sector, I know what to expect.
It is a little more difficult with the Liberals, who keep promising an energy transition, who keep promising to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but then do the exact opposite. We only have to look at Bay du Nord.
At the Montreal Climate Summit, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said, “I am an activist and an environmentalist. . . . I must represent all Canadians and I have to accept that I won't be able to win all my battles... I know you are disappointed with the Bay du Nord decision”. I wondered why he said that he represented all Canadians. Does that mean that all Canadians disagree that the oil and gas sector poses an environmental problem?
From reading his quote, I get the impression he is making a decision that goes against his beliefs. I am not questioning the environment minister’s beliefs: he has shown that he has a strong environmental ethic. However, in his opinion, what makes sense for Canadians is to accept oil and gas projects. This is what makes me say that talking about the oil and gas industry in Canada is something almost irrational that can paralyze our political process.
We in the Bloc Québécois are somewhat less affected, I admit. Until very recently, we could count on the NDP. However, with the happy and consummated marriage between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the New Democrats will be obliged, and my friend Charlie will like what I say next, even if they condemn the $2.6 billion—
658 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I heard him repeat that nonsense from Oil Change International about the NDP's motion. Has my colleague reviewed the figures that this organization provided to prove that the oil industry receives 14 times more subsidies than—
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:22:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what Oil Change International says is that, year after year, the government, through EDC, invests a minimum of $14 billion in the oil and gas sector. What is worse, the Canadian government is not prepared to define what it considers a subsidy, so we will never have a real sense of what is going on.
Given the $14 billion a year invested through EDC and all of the money spent on the Trans Mountain pipeline, I think I would stop talking. I would almost be ashamed if I were from the west.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:35:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my grandfather had a fantastic saying: “Be careful not to squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube, because it is awfully hard to get it back in.”
Once again, the hon. member for Winnipeg North is telling us that the future of the oil sector is growth and the extensive use of carbon capture. In his head, that is the solution. He is squeezing the tube of toothpaste so hard that there is toothpaste all over the walls and trying to make us believe he can get it back in the tube.
I am happy not to be the one who has to clean his mirror.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:34:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say that there will be a role for oil and gas. I noted that by 2050, that role will be for non-combustion purposes principally. Certainly we are going to see a steady decline over the coming decades in the production and use of oil and gas, especially for combustion purposes.
I suppose my answer is simply to say that I do not have the same challenges with our country as a producer as I would with a regime like Russia, for example. We are rightly prohibiting Russian oil and gas for good reason, but we also need to transition very quickly. We need to support that transition and make sure that we support our workers and our society in a future that is ultimately going to be net zero by 2050.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:26:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, you must be wondering why gas is so expensive. That is such a good question that Radio-Canada analyzed where every penny people spend on a litre of gas goes, and the answer is: into oil companies' pockets. They are the gluttons here.
Their refining margin has climbed steadily since 2008 from 9¢ to 48¢. That is over five times more. Meanwhile, the federal government has been subsidizing them like there is no tomorrow. In the budget, it gives them $2.4 billion of public money. When will it cut these gluttons off instead of fattening them up?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:28:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about economic drivers in this country, we talk about the oil and gas sector, we talk about aerospace and we talk about the auto sector. It is an important sector for this country, and if we are talking about the rise in gas prices, this is the time when everybody in this House should be focused on getting Vladimir Putin out of Ukraine, not playing cheap politics. That is the real mission. We will keep working on affordability and not worrying about economic engines for this country.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:18:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is, of course, “no”. We do not want to put oil and gas workers out of work. The oil and gas industry has been very good to Canada over the past decades. The member for Calgary Centre recounted in great detail how much benefit it has provided Canadians and Canadian workers.
However, that is not where we are going. What I am saying is we have to make sure that those workers who have good union jobs now will have good union jobs in the future, but those jobs are disappearing, whether they like it or not. A lot of those workers are rightly concerned about what they see. We have to invest in that future for them and their families.
132 words
- 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 3:54:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Vancouver East.
We put forward this motion for a number of reasons. I want to lay out, first of all, the context. In our country right now, Canadians are paying over $2 a litre for gas. That means that families are being hurt. Families have been isolated because of this pandemic and have not been able to visit their close ones, and now, when they finally have the opportunity, they are considering cancelling road trips to visit dear family members because they simply cannot afford it.
What makes it even more offensive is that oil and gas companies are posting massive profits, in some cases record profits. Imperial Oil is experiencing the highest profits it has enjoyed in 30 years. In light of that, what adds insult to injury is that the Liberal government continues to hand out billions of dollars in subsidies to these very profitable oil and gas companies. That is wrong.
Gasoline costs more than $2 a litre in much of the country. People are struggling, and it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet. At the same time, these oil companies are making huge profits, record profits in some cases.
It gets worse. The Liberal government continues to throw billions of dollars in subsidies at these companies. People are struggling, while big oil is making record profits. That is unacceptable, and we are saying that we can do things differently and fix this problem.
Any time the cost of everything goes up, it hurts families, but there are also winners. While families are hurt as the cost of living goes up, inflation rises and gas rises, oil and gas companies are benefiting from this moment. The sad thing is that the only solutions ever proposed in times when there is inflation are measures that make things even worse for families, increasing interest rates, which only further squeezes families that are already so hurt. Why is it that the only response in difficult times is to put more pressure and burden on the families and workers who are already struggling?
The New Democrats contend that to deal with the rising cost of living, to deal with the cost of goods going up and to deal with inflation, we have to find a solution that does not follow the traditional path of putting more burden on families. We have to find a solution that helps families, does not put the burden on them, lifts them up and provides them with support.
Whenever the cost of living rises, there are winners and there are losers. Families lose because the cost of living goes up and it gets harder and harder to make ends meet. Oil companies win because they rake in huge, record profits.
The only solutions proposed, traditionally, actually make things worse for workers and families. New Democrats believe profoundly that we need solutions that help workers and families, and that is exactly what we are going to put forward.
I want to be very clear. Whenever the cost of living rises and inflation rises, there are winners and there are losers. Families are hurt, workers are hurt and people who are precariously employed are hurt, but the oil and gas companies are benefiting. They are winning. They are making more and more profit, and the only solutions proposed, traditionally, are solutions that put further and further weight and burden on the shoulders of families. That has to end. The New Democrats believe profoundly that we need solutions to deal with the cost of living and inflation that actually support families, help workers and lift people up.
People across this country are paying hundreds of dollars more in their costs, and oil and gas companies are enjoying record profits. On top of that, they are receiving billions of dollars of public money, which is our money. Our solution is to stop subsidizing already profitable companies, end those subsidies and invest that money back into people by doubling the GST tax credit, increasing the child benefit and supporting families that need help the most.
While oil and gas companies make massive profits as the cost of oil rises and enjoy profits they have never seen in 30 years, the New Democrats are calling on the government to end fossil fuel subsidies and use that public money to invest in people, to support families and to invest in renewable energy. That is the way forward.
Right now, families are struggling. They are spending hundreds of dollars more because the cost of living and the cost of gas have gone up. New Democrats want to end fossil fuel subsidies and invest that money to help families.
We want to double the GST tax credit, increase the Canada child benefit and invest in renewable energy in our country. That is what we see as the way forward, a way that will do more to help people.
Families are struggling at the pumps with the cost of gas going up. At the same time, families are struggling with worry about the climate crisis. We have seen the impact in our lives in B.C., with intense flooding and intense record-setting temperatures, the cost of which was a loss of lives. We see flooding and forest fires across the country. We know that the impact of the climate crisis is real and it is now, and instead of giving public money to these profitable oil and gas companies, we must end those subsidies and use that public money to fight the climate crisis, invest in renewable energy, support workers who are hurt by the climate crisis and help families that are struggling with the cost of living.
While the Liberals talk about ending fossil fuel subsidies, their actions are very different. Instead of ending fossil fuel subsidies in this budget, they have increased them by $2.6 billion for a carbon capture tax credit, which we are not very certain is actually going to help in tackling the climate crisis. Either way, we should force profitable companies to do the right thing, be environmentally conscious and make the right decisions to protect our planet and our environment. We should also be spending public money on sectors that need more support, such as the renewable energy sector, so that we can have renewable energy in our country and good jobs that are long-lasting.
At the end of the day, politics is about choices. The choices we make reflect the priorities we have. It is clear that the Liberal government's priority is protecting the profits of billion-dollar oil and gas companies. It continues to give them billions of dollars more in public money instead of standing up for workers, families and people struggling with the cost of living.
The New Democrats would make different choices. Our choice would be to end the billions of dollars in public money flowing to profitable companies and use those financial resources to help families and people and invest in renewable energy. There are better choices we can make, and the New Democrats are outlining those better decisions.
1198 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:07:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we completely agree that the Liberal government's approach is the wrong one and that it will not solve the current crisis. The crisis requires urgent action.
We want the government to stop, cancel and eliminate oil subsidies immediately, this year. We want it to reinvest in the priorities of Canadians, families and workers and in renewable energy.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:22:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the speech denouncing the use of carbon capture technologies, which will benefit the oil companies. However, there is something I do not understand. I would like the member to explain to me how she can condemn this practice and at the same time praise it in the last budget.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
