- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- May/27/24 8:27:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of listening to Conservatives say, “But Canada's emissions are just a tiny drop in the bucket globally.” The unfortunate reality for the member, is that despite the fact that maybe the claim helps him sleep at night, Canada has among the worst GHG emissions per capita. As a matter of fact, if we look at the average GHG per capita emissions in Europe, we see that Canada's are three times those. There is only one country in the entire world that has worse GHG emissions per capita than Canada, and that is Australia.
What I found really interesting about the member's speech is that he talked at the beginning about how Conservatives like renewable energy, but then spent just about his entire speech talking about fossil fuel extraction. I am wondering whether the member could share with the House what his favourite type of renewable energy is.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 6:36:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will have a chat with the member for St. Catharines later about that.
My question for the member is as follows. Conservatives have been going on for months now, talking about fuelling inflation with more, I think they called it, budget inflation. They keep talking about how inflation is going to skyrocket and get even more out of control as a result of the budget.
However, none of that happened. We have now seen four straight months where inflation has stayed within the Bank of Canada's target of 2% to 3%. Today's inflation numbers are the lowest that they have been in three years.
Why does the member continue to suggest that false narrative, that the budget is contributing to inflation, when reality suggests that he is completely wrong?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 5:59:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about energy in this country, and I hear Conservatives talk in this way all the time. I just want to understand what he means.
Conservatives always say that the government is anti-energy, but, in reality, we are in favour of looking at various different forms of energy. Conservatives talk about energy as though the only possible form involves fossil fuels.
Can the member explain to the House why Conservatives do not regard renewables and other cleaner forms of energy as “energy”? If they did, they would not use this anti-energy narrative.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 3:59:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not going to disagree with a lot of what that member said. If he is looking for more opportunities to further tighten money or to talk about rebates that are going back to big oil, I will have an open ear to listen to what he has to say.
I think it is also really important to remember that sometimes, when we subsidize the fossil fuel industry, it is to do important things such as clean up orphan oil wells, which perhaps—
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:04:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague from the Green Party on this. The reality is that this false narrative or red herring reminds me a lot of the one that we hear quite often from Conservatives about Canada's fossil fuels being the cleanest in the world, as though that is some reason why we should not seek to do better. Rather than doing something about a problem, their solution is to exploit our resources because they are slightly more cleaner than other jurisdictions.
We know that what it really comes down to is that Canada is a leader. We are a G7 country. We benefited from the industrial revolution immensely. It is to the benefit of every citizen in our country, like all our other G7 partners. We have an obligation to the world to be at the forefront, to lead the charge in terms of changing our environmental practices throughout the globe.
This idea that we can somehow dismiss the issue away because we are a bit better than some other countries is a huge red herring. It is what we hear time and time again from Conservatives and it is getting pretty stale.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:46:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the premise of the question is wrong. The member is suggesting that it was just for Atlantic provinces. It is not. The carve-out for home heating with oil is across the entire country. In my province of Ontario, there are twice as many people who use oil as in Atlantic Canada. I will say, though, that I believe that this is not the case in Quebec, because Quebec actually has a very ambitious program to get off fossil fuels; one will not be not allowed to build a new house there, as of the end of this year, or even to renovate and replace one's heating system, with a fossil-fuel-based appliance.
Those are the kinds of measures we need in this country. It becomes very difficult to do that when we are fighting against an opposition that does not even believe we have a problem.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:45:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are aware that, certainly while we go through this transition, energy is going to be a struggle for Canadians. That is why we are trying to work with Canadians to give them the resources and the tools they need to be able to transition away, in particular, from the very expensive fossil-fuel-based forms of energy that create a lot of carbon emissions and, as a result, the tax. That is why we are encouraging people to move toward heat pumps, for example, by giving rebates and giving incentives to do that. We will continue to invest in programs like that.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:37:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, toward the end of her intervention, the member commented on fossil fuel subsidies and government investment. I would like to remind the member that, over the time of the current Liberal government, we have seen those go down significantly. They are on track to be completely removed, I believe it is by the end of this year or next year.
The problem is that there are still certain investments that have to occur in the oil and gas sector, such as cleaning up orphaned oil wells, for example. Unfortunately, the programs were not in place 30 or 40 years, or more, ago, when these wells were created, to ensure that there was a fund to deal with them afterwards. We cannot just totally turn our back on that now. I see, every once in a while, the conflation of government investment with doing the right thing, in my opinion, which is to deal with the orphaned wells, because we allowed people to get away with leaving them like that, but it is a reality of the situation. In terms of investing and providing fossil fuel subsidies that direct investments to those companies, that is certainly almost completely eliminated at this point, and it will be within the next year or so.
213 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I note that my colleague brought up a really interesting point, which is that Conservatives talk about the carbon tax quite a bit, but they seem to stop short when it comes to trying to explain the rising costs otherwise.
There is a very good graph that was recently posted that shows exactly where the price of fuel has increased. Over the last year, the price of fuel has increased, as a result of the carbon tax, by 2¢ per litre. The price of fuel has increased by wholesale margins, in other words, profits, by 18¢ per litre.
Can the member for Timmins—James Bay provide some insight as to why the Conservatives are so hung up on talking about the increase of 2¢ per litre as it relates to the carbon tax and not the 18¢ per litre as it relates to the profits received by these oil companies?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 3:53:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is the reason I wholeheartedly support this motion. I will be honest with this member. I informed my whip before I knew that this party would be voting for it that I would be voting for it because I genuinely do not believe that we should be investing in fossil fuels. That is my own personal position. The sooner we can get to a point that we are not doing that, the better. I realize that the government is on track to get to that point by 2025, but if we can get to it by 2023, I would be even happier.
I support this motion. I personally am not in favour of continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry. I do not think it is good for our environment. I know it is not. I do not think it is good for society as a whole.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 3:49:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do agree that this government could do that. We do need to take a reasonable, rational approach and we need to push the needle as far as we can. I am not personally in support of continuing the exploration, but I also think that what is more important is to create the right economic conditions that naturally, as we are seeing, so many of the large fossil fuel producers are just discovering, which is that the economics of it are not there anymore because the world is changing.
We are in a transition period now and, despite the fact that there might still be some interest in extraction and finding new areas to extract, I think, personally, that we are at a tipping point where we will very quickly start to see that decline. One in 10 cars sold in Canada was an electric vehicle. We are just at the chasm of the innovation curve where we will start to see it take off. At that point I do not think that there will be an interest to continue to explore for fossil fuels.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 3:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
As we talk about this motion introduced by the Bloc today, I cannot help but reflect on what I was talking about prior to question period when I started my speech, and that is the absolute reluctance of Conservative members to agree that humans have caused climate change and that we have a role to play in addressing it.
I am reminded of a cartoon that I recently saw that was floating around on social media that shows forest fires burning and firefighters fighting those fires while a plane flies above with a banner off the back of it with the Conservative logo, “Scrap the carbon tax.” Conservatives are ready to burn the whole place down in the name of preserving our ability to extract fossil fuels from the ground. Even the Bloc Québécois, which they are partners with most of the time, the light blue, understands that climate change is a serious issue and we need to move quickly. We need to do more and push the government to do more at all times in order to properly combat the negative effects that we are seeing as a result of climate change and, quite frankly, prepare ourselves to be able to deal with them.
There is a lot that has already changed and a lot that we will not see reversed for generations to come. We have to understand that climate change is with us and that we have to be as prepared as we can be to deal with it in the best ways possible. However, that is not to say that we should throw up our hands and suggest that we should not be doing anything to prevent further disasters and further climate change from occurring. The Bloc Québécois, with this motion, is pushing the government, as it should, as a responsible opposition party, to do more and to do better.
I reference item (e) in its motion, which I am very much in support of. It states, “demand that the federal government stop investing in fossil fuels and develop incentives, while respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, to promote the use of renewable energy and public transit.” In response to that, I would say that we have done a significant amount, whether it is investing in public transit and, in particular, electric buses in transit systems throughout our country, investing in renewable energies or investing in electric vehicle technology and electric vehicle purchases by consumers. The federal government has been there, but that is not to say that we cannot do more; we must do more and we have to be asking the government at all times to do more about ensuring that we are taking this matter seriously.
When we talk about some of the specific investments, I am reminded of a company just outside of my riding of Kingston and the Islands, in the riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. The government formed a partnership with Umicore, a battery manufacturing facility, which will establish the largest battery manufacturing facility for electric vehicles in North America. This is a company that has a lot of history and has built similar facilities in other parts of the world. It is based out of Europe. It has expanded in Europe, and is now looking at markets outside Europe. It is looking at Canada.
One may ask why it is interested in Canada and not the United States. We are a relatively small economy compared to our neighbour, the United States, and there are other options in North America. Quite frankly, it chose Canada because it sees our commitment to sustainability. It sees our commitment to supporting the industry that it is part of. That is exactly what we need to be doing now.
Not only is the Bloc Québécois calling on the government to do more from an environmental perspective, but this motion is also asking the federal government to bolster the economy and have a stronger economy as it relates to renewable energy. This is absolutely critical at this point, as we heard the Minister of Environment say earlier. We are at the forefront of new technology. This is technology that is going to change not just Canada, but the world.
We have an option. We can either wait and let other countries develop it, import their technology and what they produce in years to come, or we can be at the forefront of it. We can develop those technologies here, we can harness the intellectual capability, intellectual patents and the ideas that come from people who are working on these projects. We can see them developed here, and then we become an exporter of that technology, selling it to the rest of the world.
Anybody who looks at macroeconomic policy would determine that the far superior way of approaching this is to become a leader in this. Of course, in order to do that, they have to believe that is the future. That is where the divide is in this House, at least as it relates to Conservatives versus every other party. Conservatives do not believe that the future is in those technologies. They believe that the future is in the continual extraction of oil and fossil fuels from underground so that they can be burned and used, and we would not have the opportunity to benefit from those incredible advancements that we are seeing in other parts of the world.
As I wrap up my speech, I again want to compliment the Bloc Québécois for bringing forward what I regard to be a substantive motion that is not light and fluffy and lacking a call to action, but indeed a motion that does call on the government to do more. That is what a responsible opposition party should be doing. I see that in this motion today and I am very happy to vote in favour of it when we ultimately vote on this next week.
1015 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:24:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the Bloc Québécois for the motion they have introduced in the House today. I want to congratulate them on bringing forward a motion of substance that genuinely calls on the government to do something meaningful within its realm of possibility.
I want to express that I plan to vote in favour of this motion, not only because it is well crafted, but also because it is a motion on something we should be calling upon the government to do.
When we talk about the government investing in fossil fuels, I think it is important that we do not invest in the creation, exploitation or extraction of fossil fuels. However, I believe there is still work for the government to do with dealing with abandoned oil wells, for example.
Could the leader of the Bloc confirm that the motion is attempting to distinguish between investing in fossil fuels from an extraction perspective and dealing with abandoned oil wells and other impacts from previous fossil fuels extraction?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 1:37:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I heard the member correctly, she said that she wanted a tenfold increase of Canadian fossil fuel extraction in order to supply other parts of the world. Can she confirm that this is indeed what she is suggesting? Perhaps I heard her wrong and she would like to correct the record.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 11:48:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I am curious to know how many of those liquified natural gas plants the former Conservative Harper government was able to build. Just one?
More importantly, is the member sure that the future of our country is so dependent on liquified natural gas? There is no doubt that to some degree it will be used. However, what we are seeing, at least what I am seeing in my own riding, is people who are literally cutting their gas line off at the street because they are converting their heat sources to heat pumps. Heat pumps are the newest thing. They do not require natural gas. There is actually a shift, at least from a home heating perspective, away from natural gas.
I am curious why Conservatives continually put so much of their political capital into fossil fuels.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/23/23 12:34:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is economically viable. It is to the point where there is a company in my constituency called Li-Cycle that is building a new facility 10 times the size of its existing facility. It is clearly something that is economical, because this is going to be a booming industry.
The reality, and this is what I was trying to say in my speech, is that, when we talk about fossil fuels to run vehicles, we are extracting fossil fuel from the ground and we are burning it. When we are done burning it, it is pollution in the air and that is the end of the story. We then extract more.
With electric vehicles, we are seeing this new company. It is just at the beginning of the technology, and it is already able to recycle 97% of the battery. It is taking the battery, ripping it down to its core elements and then giving it to the battery manufacturing plants, which are building brand new batteries out of it. Although lithium needs to be mined originally, every time after, that same lithium can go on to serve many vehicles as the recycling process gives the opportunity and the ingredients to make new batteries.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:32:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the compliment from the member for Kitchener Centre.
We do have the luxury of being able to voice our individual opinions on this side of the House, so in my personal opinion, I do not support subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. I do not think it is a thing that governments throughout Canada or developed countries throughout the world should be participating in. There is more than enough profit to go around in the fossil fuel industry, and I personally do not support it. I exercised that belief through the vote the member referenced, but I also respect the fact that other people have different opinions on this. I will continue, both internally and externally, to voice my opinions and my concerns on various issues.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the way the member ended his speech, by saying the government is the reason Canada is lagging in terms of electric vehicles.
Does it not have anything to do with the way the opposition has acted over the last seven years? We are talking about a political party that does not even believe climate change is real. We are talking about a political party that at every single opportunity goes on and on about extracting more fossil fuels from the ground, and now the member is trying to suggest that, suddenly, Conservatives are going to be the champions of electric vehicles. It is absolutely ludicrous to hear that.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 6:15:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Party position or not, my personal position is that we should not be subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, full stop.
Her question is about subsidizing through carbon sequestration. I would like to get into the details of that. I do not think that carbon sequestration is a long-term objective. Could it be used in the short-term? I think the technology is not there yet, and therefore it will never happen.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:54:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, through the discourse today and even through the first question and answer, I cannot help but be reminded of how, whenever the Conservatives talk about energy, they talk about energy as if there were only ever going to be one source of energy and it comes from fossil fuels.
The reality of the situation, as we know, is that different types of energy, renewable energies, energies that are created in a much more sustainable fashion than extracting fossil fuels from the ground, are just gaining more and more popularity. As a matter of fact, in Alberta itself—
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
