- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Timmins—James Bay
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $134,227.44
- Government Page
- Feb/15/24 12:21:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem was that the government accepted the decision and changed the law. Now we are dealing with it.
My message to government is that, from here on in, we cannot be cavalier about this. We cannot just allow unelected bodies, or even a superior court, to make a decision on something so profound. Our duty as parliamentarians is to test the law, check the law and make sure that any changes from here on in are done within a broader framework of rights, dignity and the protection of the vulnerable.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:45:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue of what guidelines should be in place to allow someone to die is perhaps one of the most profound things we have to discuss. Parliament agreed to move forward with MAID, and we expected that we were going to get a review. Instead there was a Quebec provincial court decision, the Truchon case. The federal government did not appeal the decision; it just rewrote the law.
Then the Senate, an absolutely unaccountable, dismal group as far as I am concerned, decided to just throw in an arbitrary date to allow people with mental illness to die, and the government accepted it. We are now scrambling, with a month left. The government is saying it is going to put some guardrails in place to punt it down the road.
Why is the government not taking the issue seriously? The member for Abbotsford's bill would have dealt with this. The government has put us in this situation, and it is not credible.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 6:04:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was here when we voted for Operation Enduring Freedom. The understanding was that we were going to put our young people in harm's way to build a democracy. Many really fine people from my region went and put their lives on the line.
There was an understanding that that commitment was going to be followed through, to our soldiers, to the NGOs and to the people of Afghanistan. We can look at what ended up happening. The Americans pulled out. The Brits are deporting people who kept them alive in the field. Canada left so many people who were on the front lines, left them there.
I want to ask my hon. colleague, because of his military experience, what does that say to the next country to which we say, “We will be there for you”, when we left so many people behind? I know we worked, in my office, for midwives to get out. We worked to get interpreters out. They were failed, right across the board, by NATO and the west. How do we then go to the next country and say, “We have your back”?
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 3:37:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, just this past week, President Zelenskyy tried to get support in Washington, and the right wing there tried to stop support for a military fight against the illegal invasion by Putin. It was the same week that the Conservatives decided that their leader, their foreign affairs critic and their defence critic would make sure they were seen standing in the House multiple times voting against Operation Unifier. I was looking at Operation Unifier and thinking, what is it that could be so offensive to the Conservatives that they had to make such a clear statement? The fact is that we have Canadian soldiers on the ground, Canadian soldiers doing military training and Canadian soldiers doing medic training, and yet the Conservatives are out to undermine that support for Ukraine.
I would refer to the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, who wrote, “For the second time this month, Conservative MPs undermine support for Ukraine by voting against funding for Operation Unifier.... Canada's support for Ukraine should be unanimous and beyond political games.”
That is what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has said. Why is it that the Conservatives stood up with their leader to vote against some fundamental military support for Ukraine? The message they are sending is very clear: They are undermining—
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/23 8:35:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals believe the budget will balance itself, and the Conservatives believe they can pump out so much oil into the atmosphere that the climate will balance itself.
I want to ask my hon. colleague about the huge subsidies going into the TMX pipeline.
Joe Biden has said that within nine years, 67% of all vehicles in the United States will be electric. That is going to have a huge impact on creating stranded assets. TMX costs over $30 billion right now, but here is the kicker: In order to be viable, the money gets paid back in toll charges for each barrel of oil shipped, and the Liberals have limited the cost to any oil company to 22% of the cost. That means for every barrel of oil shipped, 78% of the cost will be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.
Given the massive profits big oil is making, why are Canadians being told they will pay 78% of every barrel of raw bitumen shipped through that pipeline?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/10/23 11:26:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Joe Biden has just announced that he will eliminate $31 billion in subsidies and special tax treatments for the big polluters, yet Canada continues to give out billions of dollars every year to profitable oil and gas companies. Big oil is watching this coming budget for more giveaways, handouts and subsidies for things such as carbon capture. These companies are making record profits. They are giving out huge payouts to shareholders and massive bonuses to their CEOs while gouging Canadians at the pumps.
Why will the Liberals not just show some courage and commit in the upcoming budget to eliminating the billions of dollars in tax breaks for big oil?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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/3/22 2:51:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians get hosed at the pumps, Imperial Oil has tripled its profits. RBC says four Canadian oil giants are on track to getting $47 billion in revenue. Do we think they would spend any of that mitigating the damage they are doing to the planet? Not a chance when they can mooch off of the Liberal government, which gives them billions in subsidies. In the face of a burning planet, the government has turned itself into an open bar for the oil lobby.
My question is for the carbon capture and environment minister. When is he going to do the right thing and stop giving Canadian taxpayers' money to big oil?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:49:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will take this moment to apologize to any European soccer player who has never played the game and never shown a great propensity to lie on the ground and howl. I apologize to them greatly.
We are dealing with something serious here. We are dealing with a party that is using a humanitarian disaster to exploit falsehoods. I will call that out and I will not be silent, because they are trying to fake out Canadians that there is somehow an economic argument. Let us throw mindless amounts of money that will somehow get to Ukraine and make some money.
If members want another example, it is like coming upon a horrific car accident, and as we are trying to pull people out of the car accident, someone is climbing over them and saying, “Hey. I'm from Abe's Honest Used Car Service. Let me sell you a car.” This is not what we do in the middle of a humanitarian disaster, because right now, as I said, 12 major LNG projects are not going ahead. Things are not further ahead, but the Conservatives want to build a pipeline of 2,000 kilometres. In Europe right now, stocks in clean energy have taken off. Why have they taken off? It is because Europe knows that its future is in clean energy.
Let us talk about Conservative mathematics, and certainly Liberal mathematics too, because the Liberals are now on the hook. They bought a pipeline because Kinder Morgan knew it did not have the financial capacity to build a $5.4-billion pipeline. It went to the Conservative government in Alberta in 2014 and asked it to backstop the TMX pipeline. Alberta said no since the money was not there and the economic case was not there.
The Conservatives and big oil accused the Liberals of hating the oil sector, so the Prime Minister signed up and hooked us into a pipeline that is now at $21 billion. Here is the thing. We paid Kinder Morgan for selling us a leaky pipeline and it used taxpayer money to give the CEO bonuses for hoodwinking us.
Here is the other thing that is important to know in the scam that we are dealing with in continually giving money to big oil. The cost overruns are locked in at $7 billion. Those are all the extra overruns in the pipeline. For the tolls that run the oil through the pipe, all the extra costs are being paid for by the taxpayer. Not only are we paying $21 billion, but every barrel of bitumen that goes overseas from here on in will be paid for by the taxpayer. That is a pretty good deal for big oil and, again, it is being paid for by the taxpayer. However, that is perfectly normal mathematics in the world of the Conservatives, who think that this is how money should be spent.
Why is TMX so fundamentally important to the ideology of the Conservatives and the Liberals? It is because they were never focused on supplying Canada's energy needs. They were not interested in that. They stand and rant about how Saudi Arabian oil, Venezuelan oil and Nigerian oil are coming down the St. Lawrence, but it is not true. Quebec refineries are not using that. This is about export. Why is export so important? It is because none of the emissions of burned bitumen count as part of Canada's total. Right now, our emissions total from exports is more than all the emissions in Canada combined. Talk about the burning the planet. We are looking at an increase of 1.2 million barrels a year thanks to TMX and thanks to the money that is being invested by the government.
I will refer to a recent article in Forbes Magazine from January 28, 2022. It says that big oil is using the big tobacco playbook because they realize they have lost the argument in Canada on the energy crisis. People don't believe them anymore. What they have done is turned to export. They are looking to create markets in the global south. They are looking to China, where there are lower standards. That is the economic model and none of those burned barrels of bitumen in places like China or in markets in India will ever be counted in the global total. That is how we burn the planet while getting to net zero.
The Conservatives have tried to tell us that this pipeline is some kind of humanitarian grain mission. We do not deal with food in pipelines. I know the Conservatives would love to add it in the mix, but it is not there. However, they keep talking about how this is a clean fuel. The problem is that Canada has failed on this time and time again.
I will refer members to the problem with methane. The Prime Minister made a promise of cutting 45% by 2025. We never got there. Now he is saying we are going to get to 75% by 2030. I mention methane because if we cut methane emissions on natural gas, then we can say this is a transition fuel. However, methane is a planet killer. Everybody knows this, but we have not seen the industry take any steps to deal with methane. We can do this. I talk to people in the industry. We can get to zero on methane, yet this planet killer is leaking out of abandoned wells, leaking out of pipelines and leaking out of refineries. What do they do? Of course, they go to the government and say, “Help us.”
The Liberal government has held 6,800 backroom meetings with the oil lobby since the Liberal government came in. The Conservatives say the Liberal government is against big oil, but it is just a myth. We have had $121 billion in oil subsidies. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has come forward and said it wants $75 billion in carbon capture. We are paying $21 billion for TMX. We are on the hook for $1 billion for abandoned wells.
Then big oil came forward asking to be given money to deal with methane, and the government gave them $132 million to clean up methane. Now here is the thing. What were the goals of the methane reduction program? Number one was to attract investment. Number two was to increase competitiveness. Well, that is not saving the planet. Then down at number three was finding some equipment to help reduce methane emissions.
Why does this matter? It is because the environment commissioner has said that Canada, which used to be a world leader, is now at the back of the G7. This methane reduction program was not used to deal with the planet killer. It was used as a subsidy to big oil and it allowed them to increase production. What the environment commissioner also found was that they are not even tracking any of the background emissions. They do not even know how bad methane is. They have not bothered, yet we are writing cheques for $134 million and we do not even know how it is spent. Meanwhile, the planet is burning.
The Conservatives have a whole series of myths they try to perpetuate about how hard done by the west is on this and how hard done by oil and gas is. This is a group that is belligerently fighting for billions in taxpayer subsidies to support the typewriter when the rest of the world is moving to the cellphone.
I want to point out one of the myths I have been hearing. It is that rules on environmental standards in Canada are somehow scaring off investments. That is simply not true. I refer members to a Wall Street Journal headline that says financial giants are quitting what they call “one of the world's dirtiest oil patches”. That is something they also do not want us to know. Canada's—
1344 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 11:10:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am absolutely appalled to see the Conservatives' use of talking about children going hungry as a reason for us to spend billions on a pipeline. We are dealing with a world crisis of people dying in the streets, being killed, and they see this as another reason to turn on the taps of taxpayer money.
We have spent $121 billion in subsidies to big oil in the last seven years, $75 billion on carbon capture, $21 billion on TMX and $1 billion on the abandoned wells, and the Conservatives are talking about using a humanitarian crisis for more.
Will the Liberals agree with us that this motion is undermining Canada's reputation of standing up for Ukraine because the Conservatives are more interested in satisfying big oil?
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:47:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the planet cannot afford the current environment minister. I encourage him to actually read the IPCC report, which has been described as “an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership”. There we have exhibit one.
The government held 6,800 backroom meetings with big oil. It left taxpayers on the hook for a $21-billion pipeline. It has given heavy subsidies to the oil industry, which is now talking about massive increases in production.
The planet is on fire. Why is the minister letting the big oil lobby lead him around by the nose when he should be standing up for Canadians and standing up for the planet?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
