- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- South Okanagan—West Kootenay
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,729.57
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for taking part in a press conference I held with the member for Timmins—James Bay on that subject last week, where we called both the government and fossil fuel companies to account for the fact the International Energy Agency has said we cannot move forward with any new fossil fuel projects and here we are, as he mentioned, $30 billion into the Trans Mountain pipeline. I could go on and on about other projects.
This is something the government and the fossil fuel industry need to face. The fossil fuel industry has known since the 1980s where we are headed. It warned in the 1980s that it could not go down that path, and then it decided that would be too expensive and there was too much money to be made. We need to call both the government and the industry to account on this and make some very important changes very quickly.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:12:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has been moving in the right direction, but it must show a lot more ambition to really make a difference, and to really help Canadians and Canadian municipalities adapt to these extreme weather events. I will be watching next Tuesday's budget closely to see where the government will be acting and how much priority it will be putting into climate adaptation.
I know it is always hard for governments to make big investments that might not pay off in the current election cycle, but that is what Canada needs from the federal government now. We need these dedicated funds for adaptation projects in every community. It will save money. It will save livelihoods, and it will save lives.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 7:05:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate tonight arises from a question I asked regarding the impact of climate disasters on our country and specifically on our municipalities, and how the federal government must step up to help in a significant way.
We are living the effects of climate change because the chemistry of carbon dioxide and the physics of the greenhouse effect are locked in. We are trying, as we must, to reduce our carbon emissions to make sure we can get to net zero as soon as possible. However, even if we got there tomorrow, and it is clear we will not, we would still face the catastrophic fires, record-setting rainfall events, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather we are now seeing every year. That could go on for centuries, so we must adapt to these changes. They impact our farms, forests and water supplies.
The most immediate impact from extreme weather events is on our built environments, such as homes, businesses, highways and railways, destroying livelihoods and, tragically, sometimes taking lives. Almost by definition, impacts on our built environment are impacts on municipalities, and it therefore falls to municipalities not only to clean up and rebuild after these disasters, but increasingly to plan for the future and build resilient infrastructure. Communities simply cannot do this by themselves. What little capacity they have to raise funds for capital expenditures is quickly swamped by the scale of work that confronts towns and cities after floods and fires.
In 2018, the city of Grand Forks, in my riding, was flooded. After a couple of years of hard work and painful decisions, the city came up with a plan to rebuild in a way that would minimize the chances of a future disaster. That plan was budgeted to cost over $60 million for a city that regularly raises only about $4 million in property taxes. Luckily, the Province of British Columbia and the federal government came through with promises to pay most of that. However, in the past five years, costs have continued to climb and the city is still very much stretched to meet the fiscal challenges of that catastrophe.
The federal government has relied on the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund to provide money to municipalities through the provinces for disaster support. This fund has long been oversubscribed and underfunded. In last fall's national adaptation strategy, the federal government provided a top-up to DMAF, which was welcomed news, but it is still nowhere near enough. There must be more invested in adaptation projects that actually prevent future problems rather than just building back better after disasters. Analysis suggests that every dollar invested in adaptation saves up to $15 in the future. It is a huge return.
The minister tells me that the government will be providing up to $5 billion to B.C. after the 2021 atmospheric river event. We have to at least contemplate spending a similar amount in municipalities across the country every year to prevent future damage to infrastructure and livelihoods. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is calling for the total $2 billion top-up to DMAF, and long-term stable funding for projects of all sizes. I believe that long-term funding for adaptation must be at least $2 billion a year. Otherwise, we will continually face enormous cleanup bills that will get larger every year.
563 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/10/23 11:47:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians have seen what happens when we are not prepared for climate disasters: Homes are swept out to sea, and vital transportation corridors are destroyed by floods. Municipalities across Canada are asking for help, but the Liberals are not stepping up. Instead, according to Postmedia, the government is underfunding disaster adaptation by $13 billion.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is calling for action, so will the Liberals listen and immediately increase disaster adaptation funding?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 7:46:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister, in his reply to my question in question period, did admit that there are still 4 billion dollars' worth of subsidies going to the oil and gas sector. The government is just lacking in boldness and ambition on climate adaptation when we need it most. It is like the tepid responses to climate mitigation and the lack of success in bringing down our carbon emissions.
The almost $500-million top-up to DMAF is not enough. We need to make bold investments to minimize the impacts of the climate crisis. The NDP believes that we must provide at least $2 billion in additional funds to the disaster mitigation and adaption fund every year. That is still well below the $5 billion we are losing every year in ensured damages.
We need to make investments in adaptation, not just reactive funding to the disasters that are devastating communities across the country, leaving Canadians without homes and without livelihoods. We need to make these investments now. We need to make sure we are supporting Canadians and Canadian communities as they face an uncertain future.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 7:39:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are living the effects of climate change. There are real effects on people and real effects on our economy.
Last year, in British Columbia, we had a series of catastrophic wildfires, one of which burned down the town of Lytton. At the same time, a heat dome brought temperatures in the high 40s to southern B.C., killing over 600 people in metro Vancouver.
That fall, an atmospheric river destroyed every highway connecting the southern B.C. coast with the rest of Canada, and some of those highways have only now just been reopened. Floods devastated the towns of Princeton and Merritt, numerous first nations communities and some of the best agricultural lands in the province.
The true costs of those events have yet to be calculated, but the federal government has pledged $5 billion in support to British Columbia to help communities rebuild. This year, B.C. has largely been spared, but this spring, it got a storm track, which is now called a derecho. We have had to learn a whole new taxonomy of climate disasters. It caused almost a billion dollars in insured damage losses to parts of Ontario and Quebec.
Then in the fall, hurricane Fiona became the strongest hurricane to make landfall ever in Atlantic Canada. Houses were washed out to sea and lives were lost. Again, the federal government has promised aid to the tune of over $300 million.
The Canadian Climate Institute reported in September that the impacts of climate change will slow Canada’s economic growth by $25 billion annually by 2025. That is half of the projected GDP growth in 2025 and 12 times all insured weather-related losses in Canada in 2021. Those impacts will increase to almost $100 billion annually by 2050.
My question to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the question that triggered this adjournment debate, was based on that report. The Canadian Climate Institute report also found that proactive measures that help communities and Canadians adapt to climate change could reduce the impact of climate disasters. In fact, the report notes that a combination of global emissions reductions and Canadian adaptation measures could reduce the negative impacts by 75%.
Shortly after I asked this question, the government tabled its national adaptation strategy. The strategy included $1.6 billion in new funding to broadly address climate adaptation. About a third of that amount is to top up the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. That fund has been chronically underfunded and oversubscribed. Many communities trying to rebuild after fires and floods do not get the help they need.
Will the government stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and redirect those billions of dollars to help communities prepare for climate change?
We will save many times that investment by reducing the direct impacts of extreme weather on Canadian communities, and more importantly, reduce the tragic consequences of these climate disasters on the lives and livelihoods of Canadian families.
494 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I totally agree. The Osoyoos Indian Band, which I mentioned, are a prime example of that. They have built the Nk’Mip Desert Cultural Centre, which does exactly that. I am very proud of that centre being in my riding.
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know the member's history and appreciate all the work he has put into this and where he is coming from.
It is a very important bill, and we should, at its core, recognize the indigenous history of Canada, which has been completely absent from most of our commemorations. To protect historic sites, monuments, places or whatever one wants to call them, we need funding. In 2018, the Auditor General found that there was not adequate funding.
That happened in my riding. The Miners' Union Hall in Rossland, which is the only site in my riding that is a national historic site, could not get federal funding to maintain its roof.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 2:47:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, people are struggling with the destruction caused by the climate emergency, and it is only going to get worse. A report by the Canadian Climate Institute reveals that the federal government needs to take greater action. By 2025, Canada will see an annual $25-billion loss to GDP, and it will only get worse every year. CCI found that proactive measures are the best way to reduce those losses, but the Liberals are far behind.
Will the government stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and redirect those billions of dollars to help communities prepare for climate change?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 10:19:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow on that theme of the long term. Will the government be there to help the people of Atlantic Canada in the long term?
We have seen data that, right now, we spend about $5 billion a year in Canada fixing the problems of climate and weather events across this country. Every year, that is $5 billion. The federal government puts up about a tenth of that. Yes, Atlantic Canada gets storms every year, but they are becoming harder, faster and more devastating. It is predicted that, by 2050, we will be spending $50 billion a year. We could get ahead of that if we invested in the long term in some of these things that would make our shorelines more impervious to storms. Where I come from in British Columbia, we can make our rivers less likely to flood urban areas and make our forests less likely to burn cities down.
Could the member comment on this need for investing in the future to save us money in the future, save lives, save infrastructure and save homes by making those investments ahead of these disasters, instead of always reacting?
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 6:44:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, obviously we need to put a price on pollution and make sure the processes, companies and individuals causing climate change around the world pay for that pollution so that we can do the things necessary to combat climate change. That is the mitigation part of climate change.
Tonight I have been talking about the adaptation aspect. We are stuck with the climate change we have right now. Right now, it is close to a 1.5° rise. If we stopped all our carbon emissions today, as I could only hope, we would still in this place where we would be having hurricanes and forest fires over the next centuries. We have to do both.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 6:30:34 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise here this evening to begin this debate on the federal government's response to hurricane Fiona and the devastation it has brought upon Atlantic Canada. As the NDP critic for emergency preparedness and climate resilience, I felt it was an urgently needed debate, and I would like to thank the Speaker for granting my request and the Conservatives for agreeing that it is a necessary discussion.
I want to start by saying that my thoughts are with all the Canadians on the Atlantic coast who have been affected by this catastrophic storm. My thoughts go to the friends and families who have lost loved ones, to those who have lost their homes and to those who have lost their livelihoods.
I lived on the island of Newfoundland for three years, including some months in a remote lighthouse, so I know very well both the ferocity of Atlantic weather and the resilience of Atlantic Canadians. I have travelled widely in Atlantic Canada over the past 40 years or so, including visits to P.E.I. and Nova Scotia just this year, so I am familiar with many of the communities that have been devastated by hurricane Fiona.
Hurricane Fiona was no ordinary Atlantic storm. It was the strongest storm ever to make landfall in Canada. Atlantic Canadians remember hurricane Juan in 2003 and hurricane Dorian. Fiona combined the intensity of Juan with the size of Dorian. Fiona recorded the lowest-ever atmospheric pressure in Canadian history and packed winds of up to 180 kilometres per hour. The storm surges swept across the coast like a series of tsunamis.
The human cost has been catastrophic. Several lives have been lost. Hundreds of homes were destroyed by storm surges or high winds, and many were swept out to sea. Roads, wharves, airports and other infrastructure have been badly damaged. Fisheries infrastructure has been destroyed in the middle of the fishing season; agricultural crops were compromised just before harvest, and close to a million Canadians are still without power.
I must pause to say that I will be sharing my time with the MP for Victoria.
We knew this storm was coming. As it tracked north up the Atlantic coast from Bermuda last week, the forecasts were uniformly calling for a record-breaking weather event. I want to give credit to the scientists of Environment Canada for their strong modelling, which informed preparation for hurricane Fiona. It was those strong warnings, I am sure, that kept the injuries and deaths to an absolute minimum. I have heard people comment time and time again that it was a miracle that more people were not injured and killed, so for that I thank the science and the warnings that went out.
I received a call from the Minister of Emergency Preparedness on Saturday, and I thank him for that update on the federal response. He mentioned that the armed forces would be helping with cleanup efforts. I have since heard that the naval vessel HMCS Margaret Brooke will be travelling along the south coast of Newfoundland to carry out wellness checks in many of the small outports there that have no road connection.
These are critical tasks and I am happy to hear they are being done, but important questions remain: How prepared were the armed forces for this storm that we knew was on its way ahead of time, and is there more that could and should have been done in the days before the storm?
I know that most communities have armies of volunteers that step up in these situations to help with organizing accommodations and food and other emergency supplies for residents who have lost or been evacuated from their homes. I thank the volunteers, as well as the neighbours who helped people clear down trees from houses and driveways and first responders who are helping with immediate and emergency cleanup, including the power company workers who are working around the clock to bring power back to hundreds of thousands of cold and hungry Canadians.
As critical and important as these initial responses are, perhaps even more important is that we look ahead to the coming days and weeks and, unfortunately, often years for the government role in rebuilding efforts that must take place. It is late September, and winter is not far away in Canada. We have systems and programs for government support to help people who have their homes damaged by disasters, but those systems are embedded in bureaucracies that often turn anxious weeks into anxious months, while winter sets in and families still have no place to go. They are forced to rely on the kindness of neighbours or relatives, or forced to move out of their communities entirely while waiting for help to rebuild their homes and their lives.
We have government programs, such as the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, which are meant to help communities hit by overwhelming events such as fires, floods and hurricanes. In my experience, these communities, especially small communities, are left to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the rebuilding process, while they have neither the financial capability to pay for those actions nor the manpower capacity to navigate the bureaucracy to access the programs.
There are a couple of examples from my home province of British Columbia. The town of Princeton was badly flooded by the Tulameen and Similkameen rivers in last fall's atmospheric river event in southwestern B.C. It faced about a $20-million bill in costs to repair infrastructure. Ordinary federal-provincial government revenue-sharing agreements dictate that Princeton and other similar communities would pay 20% of those costs. It might sound like a good deal to a large community, but the entire annual tax budget of Princeton is only about two or three million dollars. It simply cannot afford 20% of a disaster. We need to come up with a permanent change to these cost structures to accommodate small communities.
Second, there is the example of Grand Forks, a town in my riding that was devastated by flooding in 2018. After months of wrangling, some intense and difficult work by the community itself and difficult decisions to radically change parts of the community, a funding agreement was reached whereby the provincial government would cover about $38 million of the cost and the federal government about $20 million.
The City of Grand Forks waited an entire year to get a response from the federal government on their first request for funding under this agreement. They received repeated messages from the federal government that the basic agreement was changing and they would have to be responsible for more and more of the costs. They had to repeatedly resubmit detailed funding requests. It was a bureaucratic nightmare for a small community that was trying to recover from a natural disaster nightmare.
This kind of behaviour from the federal government has to change. We have to have a kinder and more co-operative relationship between the federal government and communities in these situations.
I will finish by commenting on more long-term issues. We spend about $5 billion every year fixing damages from weather-related disasters in Canada. Those costs are largely born by individuals and insurance companies; the federal government is covering only about 10% of those costs. That annual expense is expected to rise to $50 billion by 2050, 10 times what it is now.
If we are to face the rising costs of these climate events and if we are to maintain our economy and communities in this onslaught of fires, floods and hurricanes, we have to start investing serious amounts of money in climate adaptation. We need investments in community infrastructure that protects Canadians, so they do not see their homes wash away on a storm surge; investments in heat pumps that would allow low-income Canadians to have air conditioning, so we will not have a repeat of the 619 people dying in a heat dome event in metro Vancouver last year; and investments in FireSmart programs to protect neighbourhoods at the interface with forests.
Reactive funding is necessary, but surely we can see the economic and community needs that point to investing for the future we all know is coming. In the meantime I just want to reiterate my support for the people of Atlantic Canada. I know they will use all of their ingenuity and strength to recover from this catastrophe, and I hope all levels of government will be there to help them when they need it.
1444 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:33:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's riding includes Windsor, which is where my grandmother was born and raised. As he said, it is not a wealthy riding. I just checked, and the median income there is $31,000, which means more than half of his constituents were too low-income to benefit from the Liberals' much-vaunted tax cut for the middle class.
All this is to say, I am just wondering if he could comment on the fact that we have multinational oil companies making billions of dollars in profits while we are spending tax money to support them. We are doing this, in various ways, to the tune of billions of dollars a year.
How can he justify that, with where we are in the world today, when we have to move away from the oil and gas sector? Why are we supporting these very profitable companies with tax dollars?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 3:21:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I outlined some of that in my speech. I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for allowing me to go on.
We need to spend those monies on reaching this future with a clean economy. I mentioned interprovincial interties in electrical redistribution. That would help us get clean electricity across the country and reduce our emissions tremendously, but it costs a couple of billion dollars for each intertie. Those are the kinds of things we have to be looking at, instead of funding the oil and gas industry, which is very profitable.
99 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 3:18:09 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 3:13:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when we left off for question period, I was talking about how Canada is uniquely positioned to become a renewable energy superpower. During the natural resources committee's study on critical minerals, we learned that Canada is the only nation in the western hemisphere with all of the minerals and metals needed to produce the advanced batteries, electric motors and wind turbine generators that will be needed in the low-carbon economy. The International Energy Agency's net-zero energy scenario estimates that the global value for select critical minerals will grow substantially over the next two decades, reaching today's level for coal market value of about $400 billion U.S. by 2040.
The opportunity is there for Canada to both reach net zero and prosper, but we cannot continue down the path that Liberal and Conservative governments have chosen when it comes to spending money on the oil and gas sector. Canada currently spends more per capita on those subsidies than any other developed country. We cannot keep paying companies to clean up their own pollution.
New Democrats know that public funds are best spent supporting the transition to renewable energy and helping Canadians struggling with the high cost of living, rather than on profitable oil and gas companies. Instead of spending billions on new oil pipelines, we should be building hydrogen infrastructure for heavy transportation hubs, stronger provincial interties to distribute clean electricity across Canada, and electric vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing, and we should be training and employing workers now working in the oil and gas sector in these new opportunities. They are opportunities that will last into the future.
This is where the puck is going.
We need to stop providing those subsidies to oil and gas companies, which delay climate action, and instead spend that money on climate action. Increasingly, we need to spend money on climate adaptation, since the effects of global warming are locked in. We have to talk about the cost of climate inaction, and that cost is rising every year.
Right now, Canadian governments, businesses and citizens spend more than $5 billion annually to fix the destruction caused by increased fires and floods. That is predicted to rise to over $40 billion by 2050. At the moment, the federal government puts up just over $300 million of that cost. It is past time that we faced up to the rising costs of climate change.
We must realign the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund to spend more on adaptation, so that we protect communities from disaster rather than rebuild them after the fact. Last year, British Columbia communities such as Lytton, Princeton, Merritt and many more, were badly impacted by fire and floods. Small communities such as these do not have the monetary resources to rebuild under present funding formulas.
We must have a clear strategy for the future that faces the facts of climate change, both limiting the extent of future changes and dealing with the changes that have already taken place. Canada's future is very bright, but first we must invest in that future, not in the past.
521 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:57:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the latest budget, the Liberal government promises over $2 billion for carbon capture and storage projects for fossil fuel companies. That is more taxpayer dollars to companies that are doing very well. Imperial Oil is making more money than it has for 30 years. Suncor made a profit of almost $3 billion in the last quarter alone.
Again, is this an inefficient subsidy? Even if carbon capture projects can be developed that actually work, and there is a lot of evidence that most do not, using them to clean up an industry whose raison d'être is providing oil and gas for the world to burn to create more carbon dioxide is an highly inefficient way to wean the world off of fossil fuels.
What do Canadians get for this multi-billion dollar propping-up of oil and gas multinationals? They get record-high prices for gasoline. The oil barons are doing well, but ordinary Canadians are not. What Canadian families need is help during these times of increasing costs. We all need help transitioning to a low-carbon future. Let us imagine a future where our car, truck and home heating costs were not left to the vagaries of world markets and the international price of oil.
Canada has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. We cannot achieve this goal if we continue to pour 14 times the number of taxpayer dollars into the fossil fuel industry than we provide to the development of renewable energy.
The latest IPCC report had a stark warning. Either we take action now on mitigation and adaptation for climate change, or we risk suffering even more severe consequences from extreme weather events, wildfires and floods.
António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, said some government and businesses have not entirely been truthful in claiming to be on track. In his words, he warned, “Some governments and business leaders are saying one thing but doing another...And the results will be catastrophic.”
Greenhouse gas emissions must be cut in half by 2030, and the good news from the IPCC report is that this can be done. The final cost of necessary actions will be minimal, but will require a massive effort by governments around the world.
Wayne Gretzky once said that a good hockey player plays where the puck is, but a great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be. For Canada's energy future, the puck is going to be with renewable energy. Canada is uniquely positioned for becoming a renewable energy superpower. Our nation is rich in hydro, wind, solar power and the rare earth minerals that are needed for that low-carbon future.
458 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 1:53:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to the NDP motion before us. The NDP has always focused entirely on helping Canadian families. The most important issues for Canadians right now are the affordability crisis, the impossibility of the housing market, the rising cost of groceries, the soaring price of gas and the more existential crisis of climate change that asks what kind of planet we are going to leave our children and our grandchildren.
The NDP motion today asks the government to stop subsidizing highly profitable oil and gas companies once and for all. We are talking billions of dollars every year. Instead, it should invest those funds in relief for the millions of Canadians who are struggling right now with the high cost of everything, as well as renewable energy and other initiatives to deal with the climate crisis.
I would like to start by talking about fossil fuel subsidies. Canada and its G20 partners promised 13 years ago to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. Four years ago, I was at a G20 meeting in Argentina where that promise was reaffirmed and a peer review of the subsidies was initiated. That review is now years behind schedule. Finance officials recently admitted that they will not even finish the self-review portion of that until the summer of 2023, which is five years later. Most of the other countries finished their peer review within 18 months.
A couple of years ago, the environment commissioner could not even do a proper audit of our commitment to end subsidies, because the government admitted it did not yet have a clear definition of what an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy was.
Only last year, the Liberals forked out over $8.6 billion in subsidies and public financing to the multinational oil and gas companies. Over $5 billion of that was provided by Export Development Canada. Canada gives more tax dollars to oil and gas companies than any other G20 country, handing out 14 times more taxpayer dollars to that sector than it did to renewable energy companies between 2018 and 2020.
Canada paid $4.5 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline when the private company building it said it was no longer a viable project. We are now facing a $21-billion cost for the expansion of that pipeline. It is an expansion that assumes and depends on an increasing demand for oil, when everyone realizes we must drastically cut our oil consumption worldwide.
We will never recoup the cost of Trans Mountain, so if there ever was an inefficient subsidy, I would say that buying a pipeline that a private company did not want and then spending $20 billion to expand it to provide capacity for expanded oil production that the world will not need and cannot withstand is—
474 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/10/22 6:37:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that response. I would ask the parliamentary secretary, or perhaps his minister, to get in touch with the mayors of Princeton and Merritt to hear their trials and tribulations first-hand.
I would like to broaden the discussion, as the member did, into the future. In my short time as an MP, I have seen serious flooding occur several times in my riding alone. Those floods are happening more often across the country, as he said. Wildfires are happening with increasing frequency and increasing levels of destruction. The heat dome last summer killed hundreds of Canadians.
We have talked in this place about the future cost of climate change and the cost of inaction, but we are living that cost right now. Those costs will not be going down in our lifetime; they will only continue to rise. It is time the government realizes that we must not only fight climate change, but also set aside significant funds for communities large and especially small to protect their—
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
