House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

From having often listened to him at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I know him to be very thorough. Nevertheless, I must correct him.

The Bloc's motion on health care transfer payments passed on a vote of 176 to 148. Therefore, since it is the will of Parliament, it is only natural that we revive the debate in the House until the government listens to what members are saying.

On the subject of the throne speech, I am happy to hear the member mention how important it is to think of our seniors. It was mentioned in the throne speech. As the French saying goes, those who can do more can also do less. The Bloc's motion is part of what was said in the throne speech about financial support for seniors.

I would therefore ask him to explain why he should not support the motion.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed my time on the committee with my colleague from the Bloc. I apologize: I got my information incorrect related to the outcome of that vote, but that proves my point even more. The Bloc brought forward an opposition motion. We debated it and it won, but then it came back to the House and we have started talking about it again. I do not understand.

The Bloc won, so why is it continuing to go on about it? I do not understand why, when we are debating a motion like this today about seniors, the Bloc has been spending so much time homing in specifically on health transfers.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I see more of my colleague from Kingston and the Islands than anybody else. It is interesting to see him all the time, but I appreciate it.

We are talking about seniors. One thing that has been suggested to me by seniors, and I am not sure whether the Liberals would consider it, is moving the automatic withdrawal age to 75 and not having income tax be charged on withdrawals from RIFs.

Would the member for Kingston and the Islands be interested in the Liberals supporting a change in the age for automatic withdrawals from RIFs from 71 to 75, and not having them income taxed? This is something that seniors have mentioned to me in their concerns, and it is a change that would help them.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, one thing I will say about this member, and we shared some time together on the environment committee, is that he always came to the discussions with an open mind to collaborate, get along and compromise with the other side and other parties involved. If he brings an issue like this forward, I would love to talk about it more and see how it could be expanded upon. Maybe there is great merit to what he is suggesting: in my opinion, not all good ideas have to come from Liberals.

With respect to RIFs specifically, the government did one thing right at the beginning of the pandemic. We put in place a measure to lower the amount that seniors could take out in order to be able to access some of that money during a time they particularly needed it. Are there other good options, as this member suggested? I know he would come to the table in a genuine way to discuss that, and I would love to have that conversation with him.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that he wanted to help seniors during the pandemic, but the Liberal government was only willing to offer them a one-time payment. The Liberals say that they want to help seniors with affordability, yet they proposed only helping some of them, promising to increase OAS only for those 75 and over.

I spoke to a senior in my riding of Victoria. She is in her late sixties. She told me she worked her whole life and now she hates that she has to rely on the food bank. With the high cost of her medication, she cannot afford groceries. This is a reason to implement universal pharmacare, but is also a reason to include her in any OAS increase.

Will the member vote in favour of helping all seniors, vote in favour of raising OAS for seniors in their late sixties and early seventies, or does the member agree with the Liberal government, which is willing to leave seniors between 65 and 74 without support?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, what I agree with is that we take care of people, respecting the fact that we cannot do it just with a blanket approach like the NDP and the member have raised on a number of occasions; that we can change directly from one age to another. The reality is that it is not that simple.

We know that seniors who are 75 and older have more needs. A lot of them have burned through a lot of their savings. The medical costs become greater at that age. Without using a blanket approach, a lot of people's requirements change. We need to look at these problems from the perspective of how we help the people who are most in need. I know the NDP believe in this too.

At the end of day, what matters the most, in my opinion, is that the people who need support get the support. They are the ones most in need. It is the best thing for our society and it has, indeed, given us the incredible quality of life.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Vaughan—Woodbridge Ontario

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion before the House. I would like to point out that I am joining you from the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, the Haudenosaunee and the Huron-Wendat peoples.

I will focus my remarks on COVID-19 measures to support seniors and, more specific, how gender-based analysis plus, or GBA+, informed our support for Canadians, particularly as it relates to our plan for seniors.

I would like to reiterate that in the last election we committed to Canadians that we would increase old security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and up. Our proposal recognizes that older seniors have different needs. As seniors age, they are more likely to outlive their savings, have disabilities, be unable to work and be widowed, all while their health care costs are rising.

For seniors over 75, few work. Those that do work have a median employment income of only $720; half have a disability, half of which are severe; 57% are women; four in 10 are widows; 59% have incomes below $30,000 and 39% of these seniors receive the guaranteed income supplement. These are real pressures on the quality of life for older seniors. Our government recognizes their needs and will help address them by increasing old age security by 10% for seniors aged 75 and up. It is clear that our proposals understand the need to support older women who face unique and elevated challenges.

More broadly, we have understood that Canadians need a government that steps up. At the very onset of the pandemic, we acted quickly to assist Canadians by issuing financial assistance so they could pay their bills. We acted swiftly to introduce the CERB, the Canada emergency student benefit, the emergency wage subsidies and extra income for families, seniors and persons with disabilities.

These measures, like all the measures put in place by our government, are aligned with our commitment to inclusion and diversity. The hard work that we have already done to shift the culture toward GBA+ thinking has helped inform our support measures.

In addition, so that no one falls through the cracks, the government has committed to completing a thorough gender-based analysis while we continue to support Canadians during the pandemic and while taking incremental steps to restart the economy.

Allow me to provide an overview of our emergency measures for seniors, including women, seniors with disabilities and racialized seniors.

As we know, seniors are the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Part of a GBA+ way of thinking means knowing the facts. Statistically, in Canada, women over the age of 65 have a slightly longer life expectancy than men. In 2019, just over half of the Canadian population over 65 were women, so COVID-19 relief measures affecting this age bracket will help alleviate hardship among senior women in particular.

For instance, the government made a one-time, tax-free payment of $300 to seniors who are eligible for the OAS benefit, with an extra $200 for those who are eligible for the GIS.

This amounts to a total of $500 for seniors who are eligible for both the OAS and the GIS to help them cover rising costs related to COVID-19. Eligible seniors received their one-time payment last summer.

In addition to senior women facing heightened barriers and challenges during the pandemic, female seniors with disabilities have also been disproportionately impacted.

According to the latest available data, there are more Canadian women than men living with disabilities: 2.1 million women versus 1.7 million men. Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable right now because they are more likely to be experiencing financial difficulties. What is more, more than half are victims of violence.

Last April, in keeping with the principles of GBA+, our government created the COVID-19 disability advisory group. This group applied an intersectional lens to accessibility and inclusion in the context of the current pandemic and raised key issues affecting Canadians with disabilities. With the help of this group, Health Canada developed guidelines to ensure that Canadians with disabilities are protected during the pandemic.

Thanks in part to the group's advice, we recognized that people with disabilities needed help to cover the extraordinary expenses they have had to incur during the pandemic.

That is why our government also provided a one-time payment of $600 to certificate holders of the disability tax credit. Eligible seniors who were also receiving the credits I mentioned previously would be eligible for a top-up, for a maximum of $600 in benefits. The group was such a success that it has been made a permanent advisory group to the Minister of Disability Inclusion, and our intersectional framework is continuing with the announcement last fall of the disability inclusion action plan, which will create an income benefit modelled after the guaranteed income supplement.

Now I will say a word about racialized seniors.

The pandemic has laid bare many gaps in our support systems and brought deeply rooted inequalities to the surface. We have a seen a resurgence of public concern with systemic racism in the United States and in Canada.

That is why some have urged the government to take stronger steps to eliminate the often unconscious and hidden biases and behaviours in our institutions that perpetuate inequality.

Part of the issue is that we lack data on the specific experiences of Black or racialized seniors, and we know very little about how racialized seniors who are women or persons with disabilities have been impacted by the pandemic. I can assure members that having better data to inform policy is a priority for our government and in line with our GBA+ approach to programs and services.

Our government is working tirelessly to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus and protect the health and financial security of Canadians during the pandemic. We took emergency measures during this crisis with a focus on equality, equity, inclusivity and diversity. We realize that the work is not yet done.

As we move forward from this crisis, we have the opportunity to rebuild our economy with a focus on gender equality and a more inclusive society.

That was outlined in the plan that we announced in our September Speech from the Throne. This is why our government tends to keep doing more, particularly for seniors. We will continue to build an inclusive and diverse society in this great country we call home, Canada.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

However, I would like to hear his thoughts on something his colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation tweeted. He boasted that senior couples got a one-time payment that was higher than the Liberals' election promise to increase old age security by 10% starting at age 75. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

How can the Liberals compare a one-time benefit to long-term support? They are completely ignoring and denying the financially precarious position that seniors were in before the crisis, are still in and will continue to be in after the crisis. I am not the only one saying this. FADOQ is as well.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for being a great advocate for seniors.

When we were first elected in 2015, we kept our promise to reduce old age security and GIS age from 67 to 65. We kept our promise to increase the guaranteed income supplement by 10% for seniors, with up to $947 for our most vulnerable seniors. We will continue to keep our promises to seniors, including our commitment to increase old age security by 10%. We will continue working for seniors. We also allowed seniors to keep more of their money, if they are working and collecting the guaranteed income supplement, and raised the exemption rate.

We have done many things to lift seniors out of poverty. We will continue doing the good work that seniors expect us to do, because they have sacrificed so much for our country.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the member speak. He talked about all sorts of things the Liberals supposedly succeeded in doing. However, when we look at the vaccine rollout, we see it has had a disproportionate effect on seniors because seniors have been most affected by COVID-19.

Could the member expand on whether or not seniors can expect the government to actually act on some of these promises, without the dithering and delay we have seen thus far?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many of the member's speeches on the oil and gas sector, which is a very important sector to his riding, and I applaud his continuing advocacy for that sector.

Obviously each province is in charge of its vaccine rollout. In the province of Ontario, a website will be up as of March 15 so seniors can get their vaccines.

We have committed to getting six million vaccines by the end of the first quarter, and I believe it is 24 million by the end of June. All Canadians, if they wish to receive the vaccine, will be eligible to do so before the end of the summer. That is a great thing. We want our economy to recover, and it is, and we want to get things back to normal as much as possible. We all need to work together, and all levels of government are working together to get this done.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one area of concern. The pandemic has exposed issues related to gender and racialized Canadians. However, those issues were well known before the pandemic. They were well known by many people and are actually still employed in some of the institutions we have.

I will point really quickly to one of them: employment insurance. We know that some of our seniors have to supplement their income to get by because of rising costs. They will never get this through employment insurance because they do not make enough money.

Would the parliamentary secretary like to address this issue? The systemic contributions seniors have to make and will never collect are a tax on our seniors.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the long-time member for Windsor West, who represents the wonderful constituents of Windsor.

All systemic barriers, in any shape or form, need to be broken down and eliminated in this country. As all MPs would agree, we need to continue to make Canada a more inclusive society. We are diverse, but we must make it inclusive.

With regard to the employment insurance system, we have changed the requirements during this extraordinary period of time so that Canadians can more easily qualify for employment insurance. We understand, and we do not want Canadians to have to choose between putting food on the table and paying their bills in a situation where their employment has been impacted negatively by the pandemic.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has about three minutes left for his comments.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will make do with three minutes. It is fine.

Today, the Bloc Québécois tabled a simple, sensible, empathetic and caring motion. Logically, this rational, judicious bill should transcend party stances and party lines. This motion targets a particular segment of the population, the only segment that was neglected during this pandemic and has in fact been neglected for decades.

To sum up, the motion “asks the government, in the next budget, to increase the Old Age Security benefit by $110 a month for those aged 65 and more”.

We have heard a lot about how underfunding is affecting seniors. I would like to take a moment to look at what this means in concrete terms. The $110 a month adds up to $8 billion, but some of that gross amount will be returned to the government in the form of taxes. People who earn more than $80,000 per year pay a lot of tax. Some who currently get the guaranteed income supplement will no longer get it. Essentially, that $8 billion ends up as $4 billion net. That is what the Bloc Québécois's motion would actually cost.

A mere $4 billion for our seniors, hitherto neglected by the government, is not much compared to the flood of subsidies and cash the government has been handing out over the past year. Four billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to $400 billion. It is also very little compared to numbers like the one that came out today, Irving Shipbuilding's $57-billion cost overrun. That is a single cost overrun totalling $57 billion, when the Bloc is asking for a mere $4 billion. Our seniors deserve that much.

Given that I do not have much time, I would like to conclude by stating that the Bloc Québécois motion calls for good judgment, consideration of the priorities that we want to have as a society, and respect for these people who today can no longer express their discontent or articulate their needs, much less take to the streets to express what they want.

Today, the Bloc Québécois is the voice of seniors. Today, the Bloc Québécois stands on behalf of seniors. I will leave my colleagues with these three words to guide our vote on this motion: judgment, priorities and respect.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m. in order to move on to Private Members' Business.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.?

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Financial Situation of the ElderlyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 16, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (oil and gas wells), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Environmental Restoration Incentive ActPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to talk about an industry that is so critically important to our country, in particular to give a western prairie perspective on it.

The essence of Bill C-221 is to provide a non-refundable tax credit at a rate of about 13%. There are a great deal of concerns, but it is a bill that I cannot support personally, and I will go into a bit of detail in regard to that.

Suffice it to say that what is taking place in Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to a lesser extent, in Manitoba and British Columbia with the whole issue of natural resources, in particular our oil and gas wells, is of great concern. I think the government has been moving forward in a very responsible fashion, and I would like to highlight a few of things, but first, I will make reference.

The other day there was a question by the opposition about what is taking place in Alberta. Often we get the Conservatives talking about our not moving fast enough on the whole issue of western development. I really appreciated the concise answer by the Minister of Natural Resources at week ago in response to a question posed to him on February 19.

He addressed the chamber by saying:

...let me speak to impending projects in this country. There are 32 oil sands projects in Alberta that are approved and ready to go. They are just waiting for the provincial government's approval or investment from the private sector, but they are ready to go. This is in addition to our support for TMX, NGTL and Line 3. We approved them and are building them. In the case of TMX, we bought it. We are creating thousands of jobs for oil and gas workers because we are proud of them and we are proud of this industry as it continues to lower emissions.

We have recognized, as the minister said, the importance of the industry that we, when we talk about the industry, need to factor in the environment too. When we look at the industry here in Canada, I think it fares quite well, when we compare it with the same type of industry around the world. I believe Canada has played a leadership role, and I attribute that to the workers, the entrepreneurs and some of those businesses out west that are really leading the world in ensuring that we can minimize emissions. It has been referenced previously inside and outside the House that in many ways this is an industry that is going to be achieving net-zero emissions, which is really good to hear.

The bill focuses on wells and what we do when wells are no longer active, and the Conservatives are proposing this tax credit. I do not know to what degree they have really thought it out. For example, it would seem to apply to every company under a set price; I think it is about 100,000 barrels, in terms of the daily average. Outside of that one criterion, it seems that, as long as someone meets that requirement, they would be able to apply. It would not focus federal support on only the companies that need it; it is more a case that we would give the tax credit, no matter whether they needed the support or not.

I believe that the government has approached this issue in a very progressive fashion. In fact, our COVID-19 supports has included nearly $1.7 billion, that is, more than $1.5 billion, in support for those orphan well closures in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

All of us are concerned about workers in the energy sector. There have been some very difficult times, we recognize that, but unlike the impression many Conservatives try to give, sometimes things are beyond one's control. The pandemic is something we could not have prevented. No country could have done that, as this is a worldwide issue.

When former prime minister Harper was leaving office, we started to see a depreciation in world prices. It started before he left office and has continued. When we think of it, oil and gas producers are coping with two crises that have had a very serious impact in the energy sector and the workers in that sector.

I believe the proper thing for the government to do was to look at ways we could assist, and one of those ways was to look at cleaning up those tens of thousands of inactive and abandoned wells. It is not a small amount of money. We are going into hundreds of millions of dollars. As I said, it would be over $1.5 billion.

There are two crises situations, the global pandemic and the aftershocks of the global price war, and now we have companies trying to react and make changes to their operations that are so badly needed. We will come out okay at the end of the day, because we recognized how important it is to be there for the industry.

A number we often hear is that one out of every three workers in the areas of mining, oil and gas were able to stay in their jobs because of the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. We often hear criticisms about the program and how company X received the program or company Y received the program. However, when I look at the literally millions of jobs that have been saved as a direct result of that program, I believe it was well worth the federal dollars to make the program what it is.

The energy sector is a very good example of how a sector within our communities was able to capitalize on a program that will enable the industry as a whole to rebound that much better going forward. Because of the supports provided, we were able to keep people in the workforce.

When we talk about the capping of wells, a big part is the issue of the climate and our climate record. This government has taken many, over 40, different emission-reducing measures over the years. In fact, we are on track to cut pollution by more than any other Canadian government in its history.

I like to think investments in things like public transit, energy efficiency and having a price on pollution all matter. Investing in Canadians and offering support where we can is what I believe this government has done well over the last 12 months, but even more than that, over the last four years.

Environmental Restoration Incentive ActPrivate Members' Business

February 25th, 2021 / 5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, introducing a bill is always an important moment in the life of a legislator, and so is the time when that bill is debated.

I therefore commend the member for Lakeland, and I want to explain to her why the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting her bill. In environmental policy, there is a basic principle known as the polluter pays principle.

According to this principle, to which the Bloc Québécois subscribes, it is up to businesses to assume the costs of environmental damage related to their operations. The provisions of the member for Lakeland's Bill C-221 fail to respect that basic principle. The very principle of granting a tax credit in an attempt to force companies to assume their responsibilities would mean funding an industry that is harmful to the environment rather than funding the energy transition. We agree with the hon. member that it is not up to Alberta taxpayers to pay the full cost of shutting down orphaned wells, but nor is it up to Quebec, the provinces and territories. This is the perfect opportunity to recognize the merit of the polluter pays principle and to implement it as rigorously as possible. Until the shift to clean energy is completed so that Canada can move away from fossil fuels, which we hope happens as quickly as possible, governments will have to strengthen their environmental policies and come up with effective ways to hold resource companies accountable.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the polluter pays principle in the Redwater Energy case by overturning a ruling from Alberta's highest court holding that repaying the creditor bank of the bankrupt company should take precedence over cleaning up abandoned sites. The Supreme Court disagreed and said that the priority is the cleanup, that decontaminating the environment takes precedence over repaying creditors when an oil company goes bankrupt. It even specified that the creditors and fiduciaries claiming to have priority were in fact people who benefited from the company's economic activity and who were, as a result, bound by the same regulatory obligations as the bankrupt company.

Between 2016 and 2019, in only three years, there were 28 bankruptcies involving 10,000 sites in Alberta for a total value of $335 million. Over the same period, the Orphan Well Association's inventory grew by 300%. This NGO, also known as OWA, claims to be independent, funded primarily by the industry and under the regulatory authority of the Alberta Energy Regulator. Is that really the case? Let us continue. Its mandate is to close wells, plants and pipelines who are no longer under the responsibility of financially solvent owners in order to protect the public and the environment and to eliminate the potential threat posed by these unfunded liabilities.

If the industry properly funded the OWA to really repair the environmental damage caused by failed companies, would we still be talking about even more taxpayer dollars being funnelled to the fossil fuels industry? The federal funding that the member for Winnipeg North spoke of earlier, the $1.7 billion announced last spring to clean up and close orphaned wells, is taxpayer money. Albertans also fund, through loans, the restoration of hundreds of wells—more taxpayer dollars. What about guaranteed federal loans with public money from all across the country? Even more taxpayer dollars.

The tax credit proposed in Bill C-221 will not prevent the inevitable decline of the fossil fuel sector, especially not for the qualifying corporations the bill identifies. The explosion in the number of sites that the OWA is now responsible for clearly illustrates this reality. It is in the economic interest of the western provinces to diversify. Even the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, says that demand for oil will plateau and will not grow much in the next 25 years, while renewable energy is already growing and will continue to grow even faster over the same period. In this context, we must approach the problem of bankruptcies head-on and make sure that governments reform and tighten their criteria for how companies finance the end of their facilities' life.

Forcing society at large to pay for the environmental costs of an industry that not only degrades the surrounding environment, but puts communities at risk and compromises our climate future, is neither fair nor legitimate.

For public funds spent on closing wells to be considered an investment, such expenditures would need to be made in the wider context of a comprehensive energy transition plan. If such a plan were implemented, making an investment to restore the environment around the wells would be considered a measure to ensure a fair transition. It would have the dual benefit of protecting the environment and supporting energy sector workers during the necessary transition.

However, as a stand-alone bill, Bill C-221 is a tax incentive to support the development of business models and an industry that are making no attempt to mitigate the impact of the environmental degradation for which it is responsible. Any financial support provided to manage the environmental risks that continuously result from the fossil fuel industry must be attached to restrictive environmental regulations, as well as other preventive measures, in order to avoid endlessly exacerbating the situation and the problem.

There is one good program called area-based closures, where well operators work together to minimize the cost of restoring sites. It is a good program and a step in the right direction, but participation is voluntary.

We need to do more to protect the environment and our health and to address the climate emergency. One thing is for sure: Well operators must take note of the Supreme Court decision I mentioned earlier. Provincial governments, for their part, must create regulatory tools tied to taxation laws to enforce the Supreme Court decision.

In the Supreme Court Redwater case, the appellant, the Alberta Energy Regulator, estimated the province's oil and gas liability at $30 billion or more. These massive costs, which are a relatively conservative estimate, are over and above the ever-increasing costs of greenhouse gas emissions, the impact on human health and the destruction of natural environments in the province.

A multi-level governmental review of the fossil fuel regulatory environment, which would empower governments to hold those benefiting from the resource responsible, is decades overdue. The orphan well problem, which is not addressed in Bill C-221, is real, it is current, and it is definitely connected to that.

In conclusion, the Orphan Well Association, or OWA, has had expanded powers since the spring of 2020, powers that were granted in the middle of a pandemic under two amendments adopted to its enabling legislation by the Government of Alberta. According to published information, these powers affect three areas: the role that the OWA plays in promoting the closure of sites; the role it plays in ensuring that oil and gas sites are not abandoned prematurely; and increased financial control to manage sites that may eventually be abandoned, as well as those under its control.

These wells are being kept in good working order, but why? To what end? Essentially, the OWA can now buy up sites before they are abandoned, which helps the company. Then it will clean up the defective sites, which did not used to happen, meaning the industry is relieved of its responsibility yet again. That is the direction that the Alberta government would like to move in with the OWA, which now works in service of the companies.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it is prepared to stand with workers and families in western Canada, but efforts need to be made to break the Canadian economy's dependence on fossil fuels. We have proposed concrete measures in favour of a recovery plan, but we are still waiting for the government's green recovery strategy.

Without a comprehensive strategy, Bill C-221 is just a glorified subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. The Bloc Québécois's position is clear: We are against any subsidy for that sector. The pandemic must not be used as an excuse to make the public pay the high price of environmental damage.