44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2023 10:00AM
- Sep/19/23 10:16:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the second petition I have comes from residents in my community of Kingston and the Islands. It draws attention, once again, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has warned us repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather.
Petitioners are calling on the government to move forward quickly and immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this the key philosophical dividing point between Conservatives and every other party in the House of Commons, which Canadians should know. Conservatives recognize the reality that multipronged, private sector energy companies are involved in the development of innovation and technology across the entire expanse of the different kinds of oil and gas production, as well as all kinds of different sources of energy production. Certainly in Alberta's case, that stands as an example with the oldest and largest-scale commercialized solar and wind farm. That has been going on for decades, funded mainly by oil sands and pipeline companies.
Here is where Conservatives stand: Global demand for oil and gas will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Conservatives believe that Canada should be the supplier of choice for our responsible oil and gas products and technologies, which would help lower global emissions and are produced under the highest standards in the world. It is—
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is what has been wild about the Liberals over the past eight years: They have tried to speak out of all sides of their mouths. There are NDP and Green voters who fell for the Liberals' empty words on the environment in 2015, although I should not say they fell for it. In good faith, they trusted the Prime Minister and the government to keep their promises. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did point out the very reasonable concerns that those voters should have with the government.
The Liberal government tries to say it supports pipelines on the one hand, but it brings in anti-energy legislation on the other. It will block renewable energies just the same as traditional energies. The Canadian energy sector should be able to thrive long into the future so we can provide energy affordability, security and self-sufficiency, as well as offer emissions-reducing technologies and products to displace higher-emitting sources around the world.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
I would point out to my colleague that, in fact, the NDP has the ability to force the government to act quickly given the agreement it has with the Liberal government. I very much welcome the possibility of the NDP using the same proposal as the Bloc Québécois. In order to support this bill, we need to see a plan to gradually reduce fossil fuel production. It would be great to see an amendment along those lines. The NDP could support it and use its agreement with the government to push this idea of reducing our dependence on oil and, more importantly, reducing the horrific pressure we are all experiencing as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
I completely agree with my colleague. I invite her to take action and move in that direction.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, given that the anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-resource development costly coalition of the left continues to mis-characterize the position of the Conservatives, let me just say this again. We support innovation and the development of new energy sources, which obviously help diversify Canada's energy mix and create new opportunities and reduce emissions globally.
Here is a crucial point, and it is relevant to the member's comments. The Conservatives want to attract private sector investment that will spur the development and the affordable and feasible adoption of alternative energy and the fuels of the future, instead of putting taxpayers on the hook or losing innovation and investment in the valley of death between invention and commercialization in Canada. It makes no difference and it is not in good faith to tell Canadians a bunch of things that are not possible.
The Conservatives recognize this reality. Oil and gas remains the top private sector investor in the Canadian economy, Canada's top export. It also counts for 75% of private sector investment in clean tech. That is why the Conservatives take an approach of the development and advancement of all kinds of energy, because all of this innovation technology fits together.
Given all of the concerns that the member has raised, since he seems more interested in holding Danielle Smith accountable instead of the Prime Minister, could he just explain how he rationalizes being the power broking prop-up to the federal Liberal government despite all his complaints and crises about which he is apparently outraged?
261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments about my health and I am glad to hear that the member is feeling better too.
Clearly, Conservative Party opinion and Green Party opinion on some of these files greatly differ on a good day, and some of the member's more concrete questions would really have to come to the Liberal ministers who drafted this legislation and have them explain it.
For me, I think we have lost so much to other jurisdictions by trying to prove to everybody that we are saving the world here and I do not think our emissions are even high in Canada. We have really stalled productivity all over the place because of the Liberal government's decision-making and that is where our party has to do due diligence in the House, to make sure that we have opportunity for Canadians.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 3:00:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I get to stand in the House on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I would like to express solidarity with and condolences to all of the families who suffered this year's unprecedented wildfire season.
I will read a quote called “a good idea” from a well-known Conservative: “I wholeheartedly support, especially [in] the production of energy, [identifying] its negative environmental impacts...and includ[ing] the costs of [mitigation] in the price of the product.... It's the idea behind using carbon pricing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. This quote is from Preston Manning, the political mentor of the leader of the official opposition.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 3:11:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from hurricanes to floods to catastrophic wildfires, Canadians are living the urgency of the climate catastrophe, yet in the boardroom at Suncor the only urgency the members see is making as much money as possible from burning fossil fuels, even as our planet is on fire. We need better from CEOs like Rich Kruger.
Therefore, to the energy minister, when will the government stop giving a free ride to big oil and institute a credible emissions cap that will hold big oil accountable and protect the future of our planet?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 3:12:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is important in the context of the fight against climate change that every sector of the Canadian economy play a role. That is what we are doing through the emissions reduction plan we have put into place. Concurrently, we need to look to take advantage of the economic opportunities that can be enabled through a shift to a lower-carbon future.
Earlier this week, I was speaking at the World Petroleum Congress and spoke very clearly to the oil and gas sector about the need to decarbonize to remain relevant and competitive in a low-carbon future. Certainly we are going to continue that conversation with all of the CEOs in the energy sector and in other sectors.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the last Liberal speaker questioned whether or not my colleague had talked to any leaders in Atlantic Canada about whether or not they wanted the bill. I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that most premiers in Atlantic Canada asked for the carbon tax to be removed. In fact, some of the Liberal caucus is actually all of a sudden starting to ask for the carbon tax to be removed in spite of the fact of voting for it multiple times over this session of Parliament. I am just wondering if my colleague could talk about how that decision to keep the carbon tax in place is harming the economy of Atlantic Canada as well as not doing anything to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for that great question and, absolutely, I could not agree with her more that the carbon tax is having devastating consequences on Atlantic Canadians. They feel it every time they fill up their car. They feel it every time they fill up their fuel tanks for their homes. They feel it every time they go to the grocery store, because everything that is trucked and shipped is affected by the carbon tax.
Honestly, I do not know about anyone else, but there is not a whole lot of access to metros and subways throughout Atlantic Canada. In fact, we have to drive everywhere we go, whether it is taking our kids to sports or going to work. No matter what it may be, we are driving vehicles, and we depend on them. Our industries depend on them. Our trucking sector, which is vital to our region, and those in the resource sector and our mills all depend on fuel. They depend on natural resources.
The carbon tax is punitive, useless and ineffective. It has shown no results as it relates to reducing carbon in the atmosphere. We have asked for a metric on it. We have asked for any type of reduction that can be shown by this government as a result of the implementation of the carbon tax and that somehow emissions have gone down, but it has no proof of that. There is no metric that has been provided yet to the House that substantiates the use of the Liberals' signature landmark piece of legislation as it relates to the environment: the carbon tax. There is no substantiation.
281 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentions the need for spending and partnership with the oil and gas industry in order to make the transition. I do agree that the oil and gas industry invests greatly, generally speaking, in green technologies.
I think the member for Lakeland mentioned yesterday the amount of spending that goes on in green technologies by the industry. Recently the oil sands companies have been on track for their second-highest profits in a decade, yet they have made no new investments to reduce emissions.
I would like to know if the member believes this kind of voluntary approach has promise.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, no, it is not easy, and no, I will not reconsider it. I would invite the hon. member to listen to the energy workers of this country about the amount of change they have gone through, the amount of change they continue to go through and the frustrations they feel.
I would challenge the hon. member to say who she thinks will do all this work on transitioning our energy sector. Who does she think will lower emissions? Who does she think will build up renewables? It is workers. It is workers I represent in St. John's South—Mount Pearl, people who have built an industry and now hear about the massive change that is happening, and it is. However, we on this side of the House listen to workers, not only because they are important but also because they are absolutely essential to this transition.
In my time as minister of natural resources, the first thing that crossed my mind in that industry was that we not lose the good workers in our oil and gas industries, because they are precisely the people who will build up renewables. They are precisely the people who will lower emissions. Who does she think does this work? That is why they are our greatest asset. That is why they are our greatest resource. That is why they are my top priority.
233 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am judging from experience. The behaviour of the past is a predictor of the future. The government continues to time allocate all the time. Am I saying this is not going to committee? No, I am listening to the debate and to what other people are saying, but I am pointing out the things that I think are shortcomings in the bill.
The government says that it is urgent, because we have climate change and it is an emergency. Let us talk about that for a minute. In 2005, our emissions were 732 megatonnes. Every party in this House committed to reduce that 30% by 2030. That means we need to get to 512 megatonnes. Today we are at 819 megatonnes. The government's plan has done nothing. I believe in real action. Using offshore renewables and reducing emissions are good things, but the government cannot be the one pulling the strings and deciding who the winners and who the losers are.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the start of the member's question, he talked about all the forest fires. I feel terrible about the impacts of the forest fires in B.C., but I want to point out that 14 years of carbon tax did nothing to help that.
I also want to point out that if we look at the 819 megatonnes of emissions we had this year, 290 megatonnes so far were due to forest fires. The Liberal government said that it was going to spend $500 million to buy more water bomber equipment and train more firefighters to reduce the length of time that these things burn. It has not done that.
Why does the member and his whole NDP team continue to support the government on disastrous policies that are not addressing climate change and are making life more expensive? Why do they not get a divorce?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Sarnia that it is important to distinguish the measures that reduce emissions, or at least provide a break with respect to growing emissions, from the global phenomenon. Overall, Canada's record is one of failure under successive governments to reduce emissions. In Copenhagen, the previous government under Stephen Harper promised to reduce emissions, but it failed to do so; emissions went up. Similarly, in Paris in 2015, the government under the current Prime Minister pledged to reduce emissions, but they have gone up.
The individual use, particularly by the Province of British Columbia, in bringing in place a carbon price initially held emissions and reduced them. That was contaminated by the provincial NDP government when it changed the way our revenue-neutral carbon tax worked in B.C.
However, the global phenomenon of increased emissions and global warming has what is referred to as a feedback loop. This is something the member for Sarnia—Lambton did not identify. Burning forests add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but those burning forests are themselves caused by the carbon dioxide we already added to the atmosphere. One cannot attach that to a policy tool used in one jurisdiction and call it a failure. We really need carbon pricing, and it needs to go up.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has an absolutely sound and real climate change reduction plan. We would reduce emissions, increase absorptions and get a plan to actually mitigate the impacts of climate change, floods, etc., that we are seeing.
The Conservative leader has talked about small modular nuclear reactors, which could replace diesel in the north and be used, for example, to generate electricity for greenhouses for food security. We have talked about the need to increase rail in this country and to build rail with housing close to it. We have heard about those things and about LNG. There are a lot of opportunities to reduce emissions in terms of increasing absorption. Carbon sequestration is a key technology that Canada should be leveraging. We would certainly be able to actually plant trees, not just talk about planting trees.
At the end of the day, we have to have a plan, because we cannot be calling in the military every time we have a flood or a fire. It is not resourced to do that work, and we have to have a plan, because we know we are going to continue to see impacts.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
