- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Beaches—East York
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $123,505.63
- Government Page
- May/17/22 1:32:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not going to justify federal investment in TMX. I am not going to justify EDC's role in financing TMX and other fossil fuel infrastructure.
What I will emphasize, though, is the importance of the overall emissions reduction plan and the serious climate action that we have seen over the last six and a half years. This is such critical action that climate experts overwhelmingly endorsed the Liberal plan in the last election. As an example, Andrew Weaver, the former B.C. Green Party leader and climate scientist, called the recent emissions reduction plan tabled just last month, an “outstanding plan”, saying “Canada [has reclaimed] international leadership on climate file.”
There are reasons for criticism, but overwhelmingly, I think there are reasons for optimism.
132 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
- Nov/30/21 11:46:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as this is my first time on my feet in the 44th Parliament, I want to thank everyone in Beaches—East York who sent me back to work here, and my riding association and the countless supporters who have really helped me do this work over the last six years. I want to give special thanks to my family in particular for putting up with me, especially my wife Amy.
My commitment to Beaches—East York remains the same. I will keep working across party lines. I will maintain a sense of independence, holding our government accountable to deliver on the promises we made and pushing for greater ambition.
Much of the work ahead will require greater ambition, but the throne speech rightly notes that the first priority remains getting the pandemic under control. It requires layers of protection, so the throne speech rightly identifies vaccinations, boosters and vaccines for our kids. My five-year-old will be getting vaccinated later today, and I encourage everyone to get themselves and their families vaccinated.
However, we also require other layers of protection. When we see ubiquitous rapid testing available in other jurisdictions, that rapid testing needs to be widely available here in Canada as well. The throne speech rightly identifies the importance of vaccine equity. We see around the world the concerns with respect to variants, and to address the global challenge requires better addressing global vaccine equity. Canada in some ways has been a leader here, but much more has to be done, not only by Canada, but by the world. It was important to see the government commit in the throne speech to increasing foreign assistance every year, but we really need to do more. Whether it is through a TRIPS waiver or tech transfer, we really need to solve these challenges for the world.
Beyond the pandemic but related to it, we need to strengthen our social safety net. I say related to the pandemic because the chief public health officer notes that racialized communities have been more greatly impacted in my community of Toronto in the course of this pandemic. She states:
Members of racialized communities are more likely to experience inequitable living and working conditions that make them more susceptible to COVID‑19, such as lower incomes, precarious employment, overcrowded housing, and limited access to health and social services.
The answer for us, as a lesson learned in this crisis, is a stronger social safety net, supporting the most vulnerable in our communities and working to reduce poverty. We have seen great progress and a significant reduction in poverty since 2015, but again, not enough. If there is a theme to my speech, it will be that we have made significant progress, but not enough, and that more needs to be done, so there are commitments to EI reform and to the Canada disability benefit. My ask of the government is simply that we realize these promises in the boldest way possible.
It is related to the cost-of-living challenge when we think of our most vulnerable communities. I know the government is going to see to bringing child care through. I have every expectation that the Ontario government will finally come to the table, knowing that its own election is in sight in June, but we also need to ensure that we address the housing challenge for the most vulnerable. We need to continue the work to end homelessness and to expand upon the rapid housing initiative, and there remains much more to be done to strengthen our social safety net and address the cost of living, especially for the most vulnerable.
I would note, by the way, that we increased the Canada workers benefit significantly in budget 2021, but there is an opportunity for cross-party collaboration. In the Conservative platform and its emphasis on the Canada workers benefit, there is an example that addresses the cost of living in a serious way for the most vulnerable.
Another important lesson learned, and a key lesson and key priority in the throne speech, is better health care. I mentioned poverty, and it is a key component of this conversation when we think of the social determinants of health, but so are better health care for our seniors via home care and long-term care, a strong rare disease strategy, the details of which are to come, healthy food in our schools for our kids, better mental health care and strong mental health care standards.
An issue that is dear to my heart and something I have worked on significantly over the last number of years is treating drug use as a health issue. We have listened to our public health experts in the course of this pandemic and we need to listen to them in the course of the opioid crisis. Experts on a special advisory committee of the Public Health Agency of Canada state:
A number of factors have likely contributed to a worsening of the overdose crisis, including the increasingly toxic drug supply, increased feelings of isolation, stress and anxiety and limited availability or accessibility of services for people who use drugs.
Fundamentally, we need to end the criminalization of people who use drugs so we can ensure they get the treatment they need. Members will note that the experts point to the toxic drug supply that is killing people. If we truly care about following the evidence, we need a strictly regulated, safer supply to ensure we save lives.
The throne speech also identified safer communities, and this is related to the conversation on the opioid crisis and saving lives, but it is also about saving lives as it relates to stronger gun control. Nora, a young Liberal in my community, has been with me ever since I started in politics. It was at her birthday party that we lost Reese Fallon, one of her best friends, in the Danforth shooting. When I spoke to her recently at our youth council meeting, she encouraged me to again raise stronger gun control when I came to Ottawa. I am glad to see that the government is prioritizing this issue in the throne speech. Again, though, we have made strong commitments, but are they strong enough? I would say no, it does not make sense to devolve the responsibility to cities. We need to show national leadership on handguns.
We also need to protect people in our online communities, and this is an issue that I will continue to work on in this Parliament, across party lines. I note the work of my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, and I have worked with Conservatives on this file as well, but we need to ensure that we have stronger platform governance and, as Canadians increasingly live their lives online, that our rules reflect that reality in a more serious way.
The throne speech commits to addressing inequality in a number of different respects, and I can talk about child care and homelessness, but there is another conversation that at times has been divisive in the House. The evidence is clear and overwhelming and there is a path we see through Bill C-22. We need to address diversity and inclusion by lifting people up, but also by reforming our outdated and ineffective criminal justice system. That means police reform, and it means recognizing that we are throwing people in prison in a really unfair and disproportionate way, disproportionately impacting people from Black and indigenous communities. We need to reform these rules. Bill C-22 is an important first step, but we need to move forward in a further way on mandatory minimum sentences.
The two issues I reflect on are what are we going to accomplish in this minority Parliament. Minority Parliaments hold potential for greatness. I said this in 2019, and then the pandemic hit. We saw some moments of greatness and collaboration to deliver pandemic supports and benefits, but not enough. When we think of this Parliament and the two biggest issues this Parliament can look back on other than delivering affordable child care, it really is around advancing reconciliation and establishing a credible path to net zero, attacking climate change in a really serious way.
Advancing reconciliation means closing gaps in federal funding. It means clean water, obviously. We passed the legislation and now we need to do the hard work of implementing UNDRIP. In Toronto, fundamentally, those who represent urban centres need to raise our voices for urban indigenous people and ensure that federal supports flow. They flowed in the course of the pandemic, and we need to make sure they flow in a more permanent way to urban indigenous service organizations.
On climate action, the throne speech says we must go faster and further. A common criticism from opposition parties is that we have never met one of our targets. The original target for 2030 was 30% below 2005 levels. That works out to 512 megatonnes, for those keeping score. If we look at budget 2021, where is the trajectory added? If the Conservative government does not get elected in the future and all policies hold, we are at 468 megatonnes, so yes, there is a reason we advanced a new target. It is that the previous target, if all policies hold, would have been met. The new target is important. It will require greater ambition to get there. We see greater ambition in the throne speech and in our platform in relation to capping emissions in the oil and gas sector and in terms of driving electrification, but more needs to be done.
Again, I cannot emphasize this enough, but we have come so far, and while there is reason to be complimentary in some respects, I have to emphasize the need for continued and constructive criticism and saying we have yet to do enough.
I will close here by saying that in this Parliament we recognize the progress that has been made, but I hope we can collaborate across party lines and push this government to do more, because we need to do more on so many of these important issues.
1700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
