Debates of April 20th, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, the pandemic has laid bare the inequalities in our society. First nations have had some of the highest rates of COVID-19 infection. This is directly linked to the third-world living conditions, especially inadequate housing.

The housing crisis on first nations is a result of decades of federal neglect. Unfortunately, this budget has no specific housing strategy for and by indigenous communities. There is a housing crisis that requires immediate federal action. Building first nations housing will save lives.

Does my colleague agree that we must see major investments in housing for first nations and indigenous communities?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree.

Take, for example, the Attikamek community in Manawan, which is located in the northern part of my riding. The housing situation there is absolutely deplorable. We are often talking about five, six, seven or eight and sometimes even up to 10, 12 or 14 people crammed into small, overcrowded bungalows. Often, these homes are old and in a state of disrepair. They also often have mould problems.

A lot of work needs to be done in that regard. I would also like to remind members of the importance of having social housing in urban areas for first nations and indigenous peoples. That is a top priority for our party.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and friend from Joliette for his very inspiring speech. I feel like he taught us a course on federalism. I want to come back to that because I think it is very important for Quebec.

The government is keeping us in a state of dependency. It therefore becomes the father who tells us what to do. It is a type of supervisory federalism, in which agencies, call centres, federal offices and all sorts of things like that are created.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that because it is extremely important for Quebec. The government's vision of federalism is completely inappropriate.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Repentigny for her comments.

Ottawa has been going down this road for years now. It is building itself up into an increasingly central power that looks less and less like a federation where Quebec can exercise a certain degree of autonomy.

Some time ago, Anglo-Canadian activist Naomi Klein pointed out in her book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, that those in power often use crises as an opportunity to shape policy.

This budget is an excellent illustration of that. In this 739-page document, the government sets out a framework for making all the decisions about what can be spent in areas under provincial jurisdiction even though it knows that the provinces will continue to suffocate if Ottawa refuses to increase health transfers. All of the pieces are in place to transform the federation into a very centralized state.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I get the impression that my colleague has a lot to say on the matter. That said, I hope he will not mind if I move on to another topic.

The thing that got me about the budget is that Liberals can just make a promise, repeat it endlessly and then break that promise. In this budget hundreds of billions of dollars were handed out to almost every group that asked for it. I am talking about dairy and supply-managed farmers. Since the conclusion of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, they have been waiting for the full compensation the government promised during the negotiations that were made at their expense. There is absolutely nothing in the budget for them.

As the member for Joliette, what will my colleague tell dairy, poultry and egg farmers about the budget?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that compensation was included in last year's fall statement but in the 841 pages of the budget, which proposes new measures totalling almost $150 billion, there is still nothing with regard to compensation for supply-managed producers. That is truly unacceptable.

I moved a motion in the House to ensure that producers receive full compensation for the new NAFTA. My motion received the unanimous support of the House because the former member for Beauce stepped out to go to the washroom. We were expecting this to be included in the budget, but it is not.

I thank my colleague for asking this question during the in camera committee briefing. I remember the officials who answered that there was no mention of it in the budget. That is unacceptable.

Support of Oil and Gas Sector

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

moved:

That:

(a) in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize that,

(i) replacing oil and gas with more environmentally sustainable options is not technologically or economically feasible,

(ii) Canada’s energy needs require the use of oil and gas to heat Canadian homes, schools and hospitals, to propel vehicles, to bring food to Canadian tables, and to produce electricity,

(iii) Canadian oil and natural gas are produced with the highest environmental standards in the world, and domestic producers are global environmental leaders and responsible corporate citizens,

(iv) using Canadian resources creates Canadian jobs,

(v) First Nations involved in Canada’s oil and gas industry experience significant and profound positive economic effects, including higher rates of employment, higher incomes, and improved health and educational attainments,

(vi) tax revenue from the fossil fuel industry is an important contributor to the national treasury, facilitating transfer payments benefitting all Canadians and allowing Canada to afford the social programs all Canadians depend on; and

(b) the House recognize that,

(i) Canada’s oil and gas industry from Western to Atlantic Canada is essential to the well-being of the nation and should be celebrated,

(ii) tax and regulatory barriers limiting the responsible growth of Canada’s oil and gas industry should be removed.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and present my private member's motion, Motion No. 61, in support of the oil and gas sector.

As the title simply states, this motion would call on both the government and this House to recognize the importance of Canada's energy sector. While the title of this motion is simple, the reasons we need to pass this motion are not.

Right now, Canada is facing a serious and unprecedented crisis. COVID-19 is running wild across our provinces, putting hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work. With the pandemic have come massive budget deficits that need to be paid off so we do not doom future generations in order to help this one. Lastly, there is the crucial role this industry has played in developing green technologies.

These are issues that cannot be solved by any one industry, government body or person, but if we, as legislators, work to support our industries, we can certainly help to address these issues. One of those industries that can do the most to help is our energy industry.

As of January 2021, our national unemployment rate was 9.4%. The January 2021 unemployment rate in the United States was 6.3%. In the United Kingdom, it was 5%. Obviously they are doing a better job getting vaccines than us, but we clearly have a way to go in getting Canadians back to work.

Our energy industry can certainly help with that. I am going to speak a bit about Alberta, which is my province and the province I am most familiar with, but what I am going to say applies to every province and territory in Canada. The energy industry in Alberta is one of my home province's largest industries and equal to 10.6% of Canada's GDP. It creates billions of dollars in revenue, and more importantly, it creates hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs for Canadians and indigenous peoples, directly and indirectly related to the actual process of extracting and refining oil and gas products. These are good jobs. They pay well, put food on the table and kids through school. These jobs guarantee Canadians get ahead in life and that they can help their kids, parents, partners and people important to them get ahead in life.

The jobs created by our energy industry are not just in drilling and refining either. Sure, we need people up on the rigs, but we also need chemists and engineers to refine the oil and gas into a final product. We need environmental specialists to help preserve the area around the projects and to help restore them afterward. We need lawyers to help comply with regulations and accountants to pay the taxes that go to the federal and provincial governments. The list goes on.

These are blue-collar jobs and white-collar jobs. These are student jobs and professional jobs, jobs for every Canadian. These are jobs that are sorely needed, especially as we will hopefully soon be seeing the end of this pandemic. I mentioned the unemployment rate earlier, but another statistic I would like my colleagues to keep in mind is one I used in a previous speech in this House. Over 200,000 Canadians lost their jobs in January of 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We should be supporting industries once we finally can reopen our economy. Our oil and gas industry can play a crucial role in creating jobs for the thousands of Canadians who will be returning to work soon.

These jobs are not just limited to Alberta. As I said earlier, these are jobs that are created in every single province and territory from coast to coast to coast. Newfoundland and Labrador has offshore drilling projects. British Columbia has natural gas. Saskatchewan has potash and oil. Some of Canada's first energy projects have originated in Ontario.

Across the country, this industry is creating long-term jobs for Canadians, and, as our Alberta premier said, whether they are a Canadian by choice or by chance, our energy industry will welcome their hard work.

I mentioned the issue of budget deficits. Last year we saw a $354-billion deficit, the largest in Canada's history. The deficit this year is looking to be just shy of $155 billion, assuming there are no unexpected expenditures and that COVID does not continue to add onto that. I know the hon. Minister of Finance's budget from yesterday has a fiscal anchor of unwinding COVID-related deficits and reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy. This is good news, and Canada's energy industry is here to help.

I am sure all my colleagues here are familiar with how important energy royalties are to Alberta's budget. Our former premier Ralph Klein paid off all of Alberta's provincial debt, in part thanks to resource royalties from our energy industry. I am not saying that the government should follow the example of the Klein government, but we can certainly learn from it. The revenues generated by Alberta's oil and gas industry help to fund programs and services for Albertans across the province from Fort McKay to Peace River, Taber to Medicine Hat and everywhere else in the province.

Right now, with the massive budget we are looking at in response to this pandemic, we should not dismiss the opportunity to support this industry, which is crucial to our economy, not just because of the jobs that it creates, but also because of the revenues it brings us. A well-supported oil and gas sector will help raise government revenues to help pay for services needed by Canadians, shrink the deficit and pay off our debts.

We should be supporting our oil and gas sector because of its massive contributions to developing green energy technology. I do not know how many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle know this, but Canada's oil and gas sector has been one of the biggest sources of world-renowned developments in green technology over the past several decades. Canadian energy companies are world leaders in this field. They are making sure that our oil and gas products are among the cleanest in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

A little over two weeks ago, I had the pleasure to visit Enhance Energy in Clive, Alberta. Clive is a very small town in rural Alberta in the constituency of my good friend, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe. Honestly, the company blew me away with its facility and its technical operations. I was shown how it is working to develop new technologies to help with the green development of oil and gas, especially with carbon capture technologies.

When I visited, I saw some numbers on how much carbon the company was able to capture, and I think it is representative of just how cutting-edge this industry is in Canada. The amount of carbon it has the ability of capturing is equal to taking over 300,000 vehicles off the road. I am not talking about electric cars or hybrids. I am talking about classic combustion motor vehicles, fuelled by gasoline. This is all thanks to the technological developments made by a Canadian oil and gas company. If that does not deserve our support, I do not know what does.

As members know, this is just one example of a Canadian energy company developing cutting-edge new technology to help our carbon production. There are hundreds of other examples. As I said, Canada's oil and gas industry is on the cutting edge of developing green technology. I am talking about carbon capture, about the new, more efficient ways to extract and refine energy products and more. Given the focus that yesterday's budget had on environmental spending, on green technologies and on cutting carbon emissions, I am sure the Minister of Finance will be happy to hear about all of the ways that our energy industry is helping to fight climate change.

Canada's oil and gas sector is one of our country's greatest economic drivers. It is responsible for creating hundreds of thousands of jobs from coast to coast to coast. It helps put food on the table for families, just as it helps create and sustain revenue streams for the provincial and federal governments. This revenue pays for education and health care for all Canadians. Last, but especially not least, it is a major driver of world-renowned innovation and technological development to help protect our environment.

Simply put, the importance of Canada's oil and gas sector cannot be overstated. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians from across our country depend on this vital industry and its well-paying jobs. Companies within this sector deserve our support. This is an industry that has done so much over the years to support Canadians and support Canada, so I think it is time that Canada moves to support it.

Here are some key facts about the oil industry.

In 2019, Canada's energy sector directly employed more than 282,000 people and indirectly supported over 550,000 jobs. Canada's energy sector accounts for over 10% of the nominal GDP. Energy is the largest subsector of Canada's economy, accounting for $221 billion, in 2018 figures. Government revenues from energies were about $17.9 billion in 2018. More than $1.1 billion was spent on energy research, development and deployment by governments in 2018-19. Canada is the sixth-largest energy producer, the fourth-largest net exporter and the eighth-largest consumer.

From the year 2000 onward, Alberta's share in the total economy averaged about 5% of Canada's GDP and 20% of Alberta's GDP. Its share of jobs was 0.4% in Canada and 2.9% in Alberta. The oil and gas industry's major suppliers of its inputs include manufacturing, at 18.7%; finance, insurance and real estate services, at 18.8%; professional services, at 2.8%; other mining industries, at 12.8%; administration services, at 7.9%; and the oil and gas industry itself, at 7.4%. By the way, on global energy demand, the energy supply and demand projection to 2040 shows that while domestic fossil fuel consumption growth slowed, crude oil and natural gas production continues to increase.

I thank my colleagues for listening today. I hope that Motion No. 61 in support of the gas and oil industry will get their support.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, while listening to my colleague, a very simple question came to mind.

We know that his leader made an announcement earlier about carbon pricing. After reading his motion, I am wondering whether my colleague himself believes in carbon pricing.

Does he agree with his leader about putting a price on carbon?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was expecting a question regarding the bill and the importance of this industry, but the member chose to ask me this question.

Our leader has put forward a very comprehensive plan that is going to make a difference in dealing with climate change and the challenges that we are facing. As I said in my speech, the oil and gas industry in Alberta and across Canada is going to play a crucial role in being able to deal with climate change challenges. This is the way we are going to do it. This is the way Conservatives believe in.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about the economic benefits of the oil and gas industry, but one of the big concerns for me and other Canadians is the economic cost. We have the cost of climate change, of course, and the cost of health care. We just had a report showing that the health care cost for Canadians from the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels totally negates the actual economic benefits.

There is also the cost of cleanup. The oil sands cleanup, according to documents from the Alberta energy regulator, will cost between $130 billion and $260 billion. The cost of orphan well cleanup will be between $40 billion and $70 billion. That is a total of $300 billion.

Why should we be celebrating all those costs that the industry has put on the taxpayers of Canada?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are celebrating the hundreds of billions of dollars this industry contributed to building Canada and Canada's economy over the last decades. This industry is still going to be a factor in rebuilding after COVID and dealing with climate change in the future.

Economies are created to build economies. It would be unfair to ignore what the industry has done for Canada and for all the provinces. We have to recognize, celebrate, support and help this industry to continue developing technologies to deal with the climate change challenges. I believe every member understands that this industry has one of the most important roles to play.

If we care about climate change and the environment, this is one path through. We must support and celebrate this industry, because it is going to help us deal with those challenges.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, for a brief question.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate what my colleague has put forward this evening. The truth of the matter is that we are very concerned about the environment on this side of the floor. That is why we encourage the use of our oil and gas industry, rather than what is being shipped up our east coast, which is so unethical and so unclean. If we are truly concerned about moving forward with the environment, that is what is important.

I would just like to ask the member if he is aware of how much the oil and gas industry was reflected in this budget. Amanda Lang indicated that it was in the budget. I am just going to quote her, and perhaps the member could give us his perspective on it. On Power Play with Evan Solomon, she said, “I will say this, Evan, and this is kind of like one of those more boring line items, but it's important, especially for resource industry companies, and that is, there is a form of a corporate tax increase in this budget that the Liberals have talked about for a while. It's a reduction on dividend interest deductions allowable. Super boring-sounding—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I need to allow time for answers. I did ask the member for a brief question. The hon. member could elaborate on that.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech and in some of the answers to questions, there is no way to think beyond this other than to support and give this industry what it deserves.

For members who have not had a chance to visit and understand how the industry performs in Alberta, I would invite them to come by and check it out, without having to read reports from here and there. Members should come to Alberta, check out what we are doing here, and they will be impressed.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address members and those in my riding of Nickel Belt in the area of Greater Sudbury, Canada's mining capital, located on the territory of Robinson-Huron treaty territory of 1850, on the traditional unceded lands of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Wahnapitae peoples, and home of the Métis people.

I want to first thank the hon. member for Edmonton Manning for his motion. He is a successful entrepreneur, and I would like to view myself along those lines as well. Like me, he wants nothing but success for Canada's natural resources industry and the communities that rely on them. This is why I want to address the motion in two parts, starting with the positive.

This approach reflects who I am, a positive, constructive and friendly person. I got into politics to make a difference.

I want to help improve lives by serving the many communities in my large riding of Nickel Belt, by meeting more people and making new friends throughout the process, because that is the key to a rich and meaningful life.

One of our guiding principles is to always be able to find the positive in what people have to give.

Let us look at areas where the government and I agree with my hon. colleague.

First, it is clear that he enthusiastically supports the workers who depend on Canada's energy industry. So do we. I know that the Minister of Natural Resources, who is an MP from an energy-producing province, shares this support for workers in the sector.

Second, we agree that this sector is a vital source of jobs all across the country and for indigenous peoples. In fact, we support programs that encourage greater participation. Canada's energy sector creates and supports well-paying, high-skilled jobs that generate tax revenue that fund our cherished social programs, and the sector is leading the way in innovation during this global fight against climate change.

It is true that Canada currently relies on oil and gas to heat our homes, schools and hospitals; to power our vehicles; and to fuel an agricultural sector, which provides food on the table across Canada and around the world. That is why we encourage the energy sector to continue its work to reduce its carbon footprint, so it remains competitive in the low-carbon, global economy displacing dirtier sources like coal.

However, this is where I start to disagree with the member opposite.

My first issue is that the motion seems to glorify the status quo. It completely disregards the necessary path companies must take in a difficult environment, an environment in which many investment fund managers are investing their billions in countries that are taking climate change seriously.

With all due respect, this is ridiculous and completely disregards the fact that climate change is real, no matter what the Conservative Party members think. Climate change is already causing damage and this will only get worse if Canada and other countries fail to take serious action.

Companies such as Suncor, Cenovus and Canadian Natural Resources get it. They take this crisis seriously. This is critical because they are among companies with the kind of ingenuity and financial muscle we need during this transition period.

Cenovus, on its website, says, “We believe companies that fail to adapt to this transition will face growing carbon-related risks, while those that act now will position themselves for long-term business resilience.”

I can also quote Premier Jason Kenney, who told his party faithful that Alberta could no longer stick its head in the ground and “pretend that the aspirations behind the Paris thing are not hugely influential in how capital is allocated and how market access decisions are made”.

Not only does the motion fail to recognize that others are skating to where the puck is going, I think it also fails to accurately reflect this government's vision for the sector.

I want to make one thing clear about net-zero emissions. We have to explore Canada's natural resources as cleanly and sustainably as possible while supporting research into how we can create export-focused industries around hydrogen, petrochemical products, packaging recovery notes, or PRNs, carbon capture and carbon fibre.

I also must object to a motion that does not recognize the role our government has played, a role that has safeguarded jobs during this pandemic, including more than $2.8 billion invested in supporting energy workers and their families during this pandemic.

This funding is helping to maintain and create thousands of well-paying jobs. It is also helping to improve the sector's environmental performance so that it can play a key role in Canada's clean growth future.

I would like to add one final constructive criticism. The motion fails to mention that we are responding to this new global investment climate with a powerful climate plan. This plan includes a price on carbon pollution, a ban on coal-fired electricity by 2030 and, most recently, an initial investment of $15 billion to help meet our 2030 and 2050 Paris targets, with funds to improve energy efficiency, provide clean fuels and support businesses.

It is important to reduce emissions, make low-carbon products and help the forestry industry and others plant two billion trees over the next 10 years. Our government is also investing $3 billion over five years through a new net zero accelerator fund. This will help expedite decarbonization projects with large emitters, contribute to the global scaling-up of clean technologies and accelerate Canada's industrial transformation across all sectors.

I have offered enough constructive criticism on Motion No. 61. I would like to end on the same positive note that I began. The member, as I said, is a successful businessman, a person who surely recognizes the opportunity when he sees it. I would like to invite the member, his colleagues and all Canadians to view the energy transition in a positive way.

This represents one of the last trade opportunities of our time and an opportunity for Canada to be a world leader. It is an enormous challenge, no less intimidating than those we faced in the past, such as building the trans-Canada railway, building the St. Lawrence Seaway or developing an offshore industry in the often dangerous waters of the North Atlantic.

We accomplished those three things, and we will accomplish many other things in the future. We can meet our Paris targets. We can do it while encouraging our oil companies to become the cleanest and most innovative in the world.

We also respect and celebrate the workers from across Canada in the energy sector. Their innovation, drive and determination are so important. Workers in the Canadian energy sector will be crucial in this transition to a net-zero future, but we need all Canadians to pull together for a common goal. We simply cannot afford to leave anyone out.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as in every debate, when I am faced with a motion, I try to figure out the intent and what the motion hopes to achieve.

As I read my colleague's motion, looking for the intent, I was reminded of a comedian that I like, Yvon Deschamps. Deschamps is a master of irony, and his method is simply to take a social issue to its logical extreme to show how absurd it is. That is truly what it reminded me of.

In reading the motion, I thought about my first days in the House of Commons and the rallying cry of my Conservative colleagues, “Build a pipeline!”, which I found to be a bit ludicrous. It reminded me of what we saw in the United States a few years ago with Sarah Palin and her famous line, “Drill, baby, drill”. It seemed like those people had no understanding of the climate crisis we are facing and the harmful effects that fossil fuels can have.

Let us leave that aside for now. I might come back to the motion's intent later, unless it comes up along the way. I suggest we do the most useful thing we can do when faced with any proposal, namely analyze the text.

Motion No. 61 calls on the government to recognize that it is impossible to replace fossil fuels. Another way to say that is that fossil fuels are “irreplaceable”. This implies that they are without equivalent, that nothing is equivalent to fossil fuels.

Personally, when I talk about something that is irreplaceable and without equivalent, what immediately comes to mind is water, which is indeed irreplaceable and has no equivalent. It could also be the air we breathe. My relationship with my girlfriend is certainly irreplaceable, and so is my son. However, I do not think oil is irreplaceable. In fact, let us go a step further and say that red wine and cheese may be irreplaceable, but I do not think oil is.

I seem to be missing something about what my colleague is trying to say by claiming that oil is irreplaceable. This strikes me more as something Yvon Deschamps would say in his act than as something a politician might say, but whatever.

The first paragraph of the motion reads as follows:

(i) replacing oil and gas with more environmentally sustainable options is not technologically or economically feasible,

I do not know where my colleague lives, but there are already many technologically and economically feasible proposals for replacing oil. These proposals and these new technologies would have benefits for our economy. The first thing I think of is the battery supply chain, which we are currently studying at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

We should remember that it is now possible to store energy and that battery efficiency is increasing exponentially, which is quite promising. We can do this in Canada because we have everything we need here, including critical metals and, in Quebec, the rare earth elements needed to produce permanent magnets for electric vehicle batteries. There are potential options with a very low carbon footprint. I do not know if my colleague knows about them.

There is also green hydrogen, as opposed to grey hydrogen, that can be produced from biomass and can be used for heavy-duty transportation. I am thinking about the forestry industry, which is an excellent candidate to replace the fossil fuel industry. Thanks to the bioeconomy, we now have replacements for many petrochemical products.

This may interest my colleague, who said earlier that the oil industry accounts for many jobs, such as chemists and engineers. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources heard from experts in the forestry industry who said that all of these chemists and engineers could play a part in the transition to forest biomass-based bioindustries, which would significantly reduce our carbon footprint.

Therefore, I think that to claim that it is impossible to replace oil and gas products is an irony worthy of Yvon Deschamps, the absurdist comedian I mentioned earlier.

The second paragraph of the motion states:

(ii) Canada's energy needs require the use of oil and gas to heat Canadian homes, schools and hospitals, to propel vehicles, to bring food to Canadian tables, and to produce electricity,

I live in Quebec, where most homes, including my own and those of my parents and friends, are heated using hydroelectricity. The same is true for many schools. Today, some schools are even heated using forestry waste, or biomass.

The same is true for hospitals. Electricity is also used to propel vehicles. Countries around the world are making the transition to electric vehicles. I do not know whether my colleague has ever heard of them, but we have been talking about them for 20 years. We have kicked into high gear when it comes to the electrification of transportation. It is one of the best ways to reduce our carbon footprint, bring food to Canadian tables and produce electricity. Of course, there are places that produce electricity using oil, but Quebec is certainly not one of them. This motion is clearly not directed at Quebec.

The third paragraph of the motion says, “Canadian oil and natural gas are produced with the highest environmental standards in the world, and domestic producers are global environmental leaders and responsible corporate citizens”.

Right away, that reminded me of big tobacco. It was like listening to big tobacco in the 1990s. Members may remember that, back in the 1990s, cigarette makers were pushing smooth, velvety flavours, smooth cigarettes. At one point, there was even an ad about the athlete's cigarette. Talking about oil and natural gas that comply with environmental standards is like talking about a healthy cigarette. It is a devious way to avoid addressing the real situation we are facing, which is climate change. Once again, any attempt to divine my colleague's intent brings me right back to irony.

The fourth paragraph of the motion states that “using Canadian resources creates Canadian jobs”. Sure, that may be true. At one time, Canadian natural resources, be they oil or gas, did create jobs for Canadians, but we know that is increasingly less true. Albertans need to know the truth. I encourage my colleague to tell Albertans the truth.

Let us look at the oil sands projects that have been abandoned. We know that big investment funds no longer want to get involved in the oil sands. As for Keystone XL, the last one in the running, our American neighbours have decided to make the shift towards a low-carbon economy. They dropped Keystone XL. When we came to the House, no investors wanted to commit to the Teck Frontier project. They dropped that too.

I can name one promising natural resource sector that creates jobs, and that is forestry. Our party commissioned a vast study on the entire forestry potential of Quebec, a study that is very conservative, not in the Conservative Party sense, but small “c” conservative, meaning there was no exaggeration. We know that in the long term, over 10 years, if we make the shift towards the bioeconomy, we can create 16,000 jobs in Quebec alone. This natural resource sector could create jobs, and the bioeconomy could easily be incorporated as part of a transition plan for the Alberta economy, since the skills are already there in terms of chemists and engineers working on these kinds of processes.

The fifth paragraph deals with first nations. I will go over it quickly. I need not remind my colleague of the whole kerfuffle with the Wet'suwet'en. Let us just say that there are many indigenous communities that do not look favourably on oil and gas projects.

The sixth paragraph is on the tax revenue from the fossil fuel industry. I would just like to say that, at the end of the 1970s until the early 1990s, we know that the government had to invest $70 billion to make oil sands technologies profitable. We know that. Quebec's share in that investment is 22%. Fourteen billion dollars to support the oil and gas industry. We know that, from 2017 to 2020, an extra $24 billion was invested in oil and gas. I am still waiting for the economic spinoffs from the oil industry.

My time is up, but I had so many other things to say.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak in the House this evening in regard to Motion No. 61, put forward by the member for Edmonton Manning. The title of the motion is “Support of oil and gas sector”.

I agree with the member that fossil fuels have brought wealth to Canada. I know that the motion comes from concern for the workers in this sector, and I share that concern. However, the substantial benefits have come at a great cost, and we must admit that and quickly find a new way forward, a path without fossil fuels. I therefore disagree almost entirely with the sentiment and substance of the motion.

There are eight substantive parts in the motion. I would like to go through them one by one, just as the member for Jonquière did.

In (a)(i), the motion states:

replacing oil and gas with more environmentally sustainable options is not technologically or economically feasible

That simply is not true. It reflects the complete lack of understanding among many Conservative members of the House regarding the climate crisis we are in, and reflects their lack of vision for bold solutions that we need to create a livable future for our grandchildren.

When we are discussing the shift to a low-carbon future at the natural resources committee, the Conservative lines of questioning are almost always along the lines of it cannot be done, it will be prohibitively expensive or the people of Canada would not stand for this. The people of Canada expect us to do this, and they are becoming more and more disappointed and cynical about the feebleness of our response to climate change. Options that are more environmentally sustainable are technologically feasible.

The electrification of Canada's vehicles is happening faster than even some of the most optimistic experts could have imagined. Even the Conservatives have admitted this in their belated plan to fight climate change. To fuel those vehicles, we need non-emitting clean electrical sources. Eighty per cent of Canada's electricity is already non-emitting, and renewable energy solutions such as wind and solar projects, combined with utility-grade storage and the strategic renewal of our electrical grid, can be built out to fill in the difference.

Those solutions are economically feasible. Wind and solar are recognized as the cheapest energy sources on the planet. Instead, we see both the Conservatives and the Liberals throwing billions of dollars at the fossil fuel industry, building more and larger pipelines in a desperate attempt to pump oil out of the ground faster and faster at a time when world oil demand is predicted to decline over the next 30 years. That demand must decline, and decline quickly, if countries of the world are to live up to their Paris targets. It must decline if we are to halt the climate change that is already costing us in fire, floods and drought. The cost of that inaction is in the trillions of dollars.

In (a)(ii), the motion states:

Canada’s energy needs require the use of oil and gas to heat Canadian homes

While more and more Canadians are cutting their ties to gas stations by buying electric vehicles, a KPMG survey found that 70% of Canadians want their next car to be electric. One of the lowest hanging fruits of the fight against climate change in Canada is the energy efficiency of our homes and buildings. With a serious program to retrofit our buildings, reduce energy consumption and change the building codes to ensure that new buildings use little or no energy, we can easily get rid of a quarter of our carbon dioxide emissions.

In (a)(iii), the motion states:

Canadian oil and natural gas are produced with the highest environmental standards in the world

I have no doubt that most domestic oil and gas producers are doing their best to reduce their industrial emissions. The amount of greenhouse gases produced when extracting oil from the oil sands has come down in new projects. Yes, we have some of the highest environmental standards in the world, and Canadians fully expect that, but this cannot change the fact that the oil sands will require an investment of over $200 billion to rehabilitate. No company has put that sort of money aside to do that work, and guess who will end up paying? More and more companies are abandoning thousands of idle wells, with billions of dollars coming from taxpayers to clean them up. A recent study found that all the financial benefits of the fossil fuel industry in Canada are negated by the health costs created by burning fossil fuels.

In (a)(iv), the motion states:

using Canadian resources creates Canadian jobs

Yes, I agree. Our country was built on natural resources. My province of British Columbia is a world powerhouse when it comes to forestry. Canada is recognized as the world leader in mining. Many parts of the country are rich in hydroelectric power, which provides the energy needed by industry and homes.

The oil and gas industry has provided many good jobs over the past decades too, and jobs are obviously at the core of the motion. Workers in the oil and gas sector have either recently found themselves out of work or are increasingly worried about their future in that industry. These are good jobs that pay very well, and I think it should be the goal of members in the House that we create an economy that will provide work for all Canadians, including those now employed in the oil and gas sector.

In (a)(v), it speaks to first nations' involvement in this sector. I agree that first nations should benefit and increasingly are benefiting from natural resource projects in their territories. Oil and gas projects have created situations with different benefit and risk scenarios for different first nations, some getting good jobs and others concerned about contamination of their lands and waters.

In (a)(vi), it states, “tax revenue from the fossil fuel industry is an important contributor to the national treasury”. While, yes, we must ensure that the Canadian economy continues to provide jobs and production to keep that funding available for social and infrastructure programs. A simple glance to the future would tell anyone with their eyes open that we should diversify our industries and tailor them to what the future will need. We need to go where the puck is going.

Investment firms and pension plans are increasingly pulling out of the oil sector. They are not doing this because they believe in climate change and want to do the right thing; they are pulling out because they see no long-term profits in new oil projects, and we need to do the same.

These are the last two asks of the government in this motion.

First, “Canada’s oil and gas industry...is essential to the well-being of the nation and should be celebrated.” Yes, the oil and gas industry has provided Canada with wealth and a comfortable lifestyle over the past 80 years. I am of an age where I have benefited immensely from the strong Canadian economy that oil and gas, and forestry, mining, agriculture and manufacturing have produced, but oil and gas will not be essential in 20 or 30 years.

Second, “tax and regulatory barriers limiting the responsible growth of Canada’s oil and gas industry should be removed.” This is the kicker. The Conservatives believe that all the woes of the oil and gas sector come down to two things, the carbon tax and regulations; the carbon tax they just created in their latest policy on climate, the same regulations that the member for Edmonton Manning praised in (a)(iii), the same indigenous rights that he praised in (a)(v). All the pipelines being considered now were assessed using the regulations created by the Conservatives during the Harper government.

The challenges facing the oil and gas industry are not the making of the current government or of any other government in Canada. They are challenges rooted in the climate crisis facing our planet. They are challenges rooted in the fact that it is cheaper to create electricity with wind and solar rather than with natural gas. They are challenges rooted in the fact that it is cheaper to own and operate an electric car than one with an internal combustion engine. No amount of tax and regulatory changes will change this or will fix this.

This motion comes from a nostalgic view of the past and would do absolutely nothing to help the workers in the oil and gas sector. We must face the facts and build a new sustainable economy that will create those good jobs across our country.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start today by thanking my colleague from Edmonton—Manning. He is a great advocate for the Canadian oil and gas industry. He does great work here and has proven on the floor of the House of Commons again today virtually that he represents his riding very well.

Alberta's industrial heartland lies just outside Edmonton. I am certain a lot of his constituents work in that gem of an industrial infrastructure in Canada, which provides so much industrial benefit to this country. We can talk about Canadian champions. We can talk about the way the industry built up in that whole area, where we produce and add value to our resources. We are not just hewers of wood and drawers of water. We add significant value along the way.

I joined my colleague at the Enhance Energy and Wolf Midstream facility in Clive, Alberta to look at the actual end of the pipe where the CO2 is collected, up in the industrial heartland, and brought down for storage 150 kilometres away in central Alberta. It is magnificent world-leading technology, a highway to sequester the carbon that is produced in industrial facilities in Alberta. So many firms are going to come to Canada because of the forward thinking that this industry has provided in Canada. I again thank the member for Edmonton—Manning for everything he has brought to the debate on this.

As everybody knows, I have been a member of Parliament for a year and a half. I have learned a lot from my colleagues every day, including the member for Edmonton Manning. When I came here, it was under the premise that people in this place did not really understand the Canadian energy industry, including the Canadian oil and gas industry. I will say here today, after the remarks from every member of the other parties, that premise is resounding in spades.

I remember when I first got here, over a year and a half ago, I would go to committee meetings where certain people would say that the solution to our problem in Alberta is to get a big fund to transition everybody out of oil and gas jobs. I would sit there slack-jawed at the ignorance on display from some of my colleagues from across Canada about what this industry represents to Canada and how much it contributes to our national life every day.

We are world champions in the environmental production of our petroleum resource. We have reporting standards that are far greater than anywhere else in the world. I contrast investments in the Canadian oil and gas industry with those in the United States and those overseas. I can attest that the only country that comes close to Canada's environmental standards is Norway. It has a declining base and is drilling further and further into the North Sea in order to access more resources because its $1.1-trillion wealth fund is built and entirely dependent on hydrocarbon resources.

We talk about a European business model, and I have heard a number of times in this debate about how the world is moving on. We should take a look at where the world is moving on to. The world is moving out of Canada because we are easy pickings to move away from, but in so doing, it is funding investments in the Middle East, which has a far worse environmental standards and human rights standards. They also have no transparency at all on how it is producing its oil.

We are comparing apples to oranges. Canada is the bar. Everybody else is below that bar. As Canadians, should be supporting that bar and looking at this industry as the champion we have built over the last decades here in Canada. As Canadian, we should accept it because it adds so much, not just from the employment perspective of 450,000 direct and indirect jobs, but also from a taxation perspective.

I will go through those numbers because we are talking about $130 billion in exports from our oil and gas industry per year. That is over 22% of our Canadian exports, which are contributing to the value of life here in Canada. Imagine our Canadian dollar if we did not have Canadian oil and gas exports. All kinds of taxation comes from here, provincially, federally and municipally, and it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It is an average of about $24 billion per year going back for the last 18 years.

Even the numbers going forward are great, quite frankly, for what we will contribute to Canadian taxes. It represents about $240 billion over the next 10 years, which is another $24 billion a year that will be going to Canadian taxpayers so they can have nice hospitals, pandemic responses, good schools, good universities and good seniors care. These are all funded by an industry that is a net contributor to Canada through and through. It has been for my whole lifetime and that of most members in this House.

We actually advanced with the free trade agreement in the United States. The core of that free trade agreement was our energy agreement, and trade with the United States has been fundamentally important to our lifestyle rising up in Canada. We can actually afford the things the rest of the world took for granted, and we have learned to take them for granted in Canada. One thing I am seeing quite clearly here is the division, between producing provinces and non-producing provinces, of knowledge about what this industry brings to Canada. I can assure members that revenue has been shared equitably across this country, and we have added so much value—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. The hon. member will have four minutes the next time this matter is before the House to continue his speech.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

National Defence

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, home to Canada’s largest army base, I am honoured to stand up for the women and men who serve their country as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

On International Women’s Day I asked the Minister of National Defence a simple question: Who was the minister trying to protect, himself or the Prime Minister?

It was the Prime Minister who shut down the investigation by the Standing Committee on National Defence into the appalling record of this government in defending gender equality for women serving their country in the military. That is the answer the minister was silent on. That silence was a roar to Canadian women. Female MPs such as the one for Pickering—Uxbridge should be ashamed when the name of the leader of the Liberal party is used in the same paragraph as Harvey Weinstein's and Jeffrey Epstein's to make the point that Canada is going backward, not forward, when it comes to making progress and combatting sexual misconduct and violence against women in all its ugly faces.

Kathleen Finlay is the founder of the ZeroNow Campaign to combat sexual trauma and gender-based violence. She recently had this to say about the self-titled feminist Prime Minister:

When [the] Prime Minister...was asked on March 30 if he had any knowledge in 2018 about allegations of sexual misconduct involving then General Jonathan Vance, he gave a sharply self-satisfied “No” to Global National’s Mercedes Stephenson. That “No” was punctuated by a loud echo. No concern was expressed about sexual misconduct in the military. No reassurance was offered to victims. Just “No.” It was more than a brusque reply to a reporter’s question. It was a huge sign of disrespect to countless women who wonder if they are ever going to be protected from the plague of gender-based violence and sexual harassment that has infected Canada’s military, law enforcement and federal public service.

When is the Prime Minister going to stop disrespecting women?

It is time for the Prime Minister and the Liberal party to take lessons from the opposition when it comes to actions in support of gender and minority rights. I am proud to be a member of today’s Conservative party, which encouraged strong women such as Leslyn Lewis to run for leader of our party. She would be a fine addition to the House of Commons.

I am proud of Conservatives like the late Lincoln Alexander who, in addition to being the first Black cabinet minister and lieutenant-governor of Ontario, was a bigger man than racists who dress up in blackface. The honourable Lincoln Alexander was actually called too sensitive by the leader of the Liberal party when a Liberal MP used an obscenity after Mr. Alexander defended the unemployed.

The Prime Minister has an outrageous record of making bad decisions when it comes to Canada’s military. This policy failure of the Prime Minister and his government, and his failure to deal with sexual harassment in the military, can be traced to his treatment of women. It is no different from the way the Prime Minister treats women in his own party, such as the former justice minister during the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

This is what a former female Liberal MP and member of the Prime Minister’s caucus had to say:

In a feminist government, throwing [female members of Parliament] under the bus, I didn’t appreciate that, especially at a time when we’re saying that we believe in women.... You believe in them when it’s convenient and you leave them when it’s not. So there were just a number of different instances that just didn’t sit right with me and the principles that I hold dear, and I wanted to make sure that I was able to look at myself in the mirror the next day.

It is a time when Canadians are being exposed to more dangerous variants. We will continue that long after.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, eliminating all forms of misconduct and abuse of power and creating a safe work environment for everyone in the defence team have always been our top priority. We know that any organization, including the Canadian Armed Forces, must work hard to eliminate the toxic masculinity that creates an unacceptable culture. Fundamentally, harassment of any kind is morally wrong and counter to the principles that guide our military and their civilian colleagues.

When, despite our efforts to prevent it, sexual misconduct occurs, those responsible must be held accountable regardless of rank or position. When allegations of misconduct are raised, they must be directed to the appropriate authorities so they can be investigated fairly, independently and with respect for the rule of law and the rights of all involved.

Since forming government, we have worked hard to eliminate sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is clear, though, that the measures we have implemented have not gone far enough and have not moved fast enough. We have seen with the recent allegations against the Canadian Armed Forces most senior leadership that there is still much room to improve.

That is why budget 2021 commits over $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces, including expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centre, creating a new oversight mechanism and providing online and in-person peer-to-peer support.

In the interest of obtaining fair outcomes, we are also committed to protecting the integrity of investigations. This includes ensuring that there is no suggestion or perception of inappropriate or political influence on these investigations or their results.

Regarding specifically the allegation against General Vance, on March 1, 2018, the Minister of National Defence had a meeting with the CAF ombudsman. As this meeting was coming to a close, the ombudsman raised the issue of an informal allegation against General Vance. So as not to have any political involvement in a potential investigation, the minister would not accept details. Instead, he directed the ombudsman to share the allegation with the appropriate authorities, including the CFNIS.

The minister, on his end, immediately shared this matter with the Privy Council Office, which is directly responsible for Governor in Council appointments, including the chief of the defence staff. They reached out to the ombudsman the very next day to begin an investigation. The ombudsman, in his own words, had no actionable evidence.

A fair and impartial investigation of allegations of wrongdoing is fundamental to our justice system. It is a vital element of our concept of democracy.

Such investigations must never be or even appear to be tainted by political influence. This is why the minister and, through him, our government handled these allegations by following the proper process.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians are being exposed to more dangerous variants and our economic recovery will be delayed by years while our trading partners are moving forward, it is time the Prime Minister cleaned up his act.

Why does the Prime Minister think that having female members of his caucus mouth empty platitudes will fool Canadian women? Just like the WE scandal that involved members of the Prime Minister’s family, he can only get away with misleading the public for so long before the truth comes out. He must stop the cover-up and allow the Standing Committee on National Defence to do its work. It is time to move forward, not backward, when it comes to issues of gender equality and human rights.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, there can be no perception of political interference in any investigation, particularly in a case as sensitive as one related to allegations of sexual misconduct at the highest levels of our military. It would undermine the integrity of the investigation and put a just outcome at risk. It would mean no justice for a victim and no accountability for a perpetrator. This, in turn, could discourage other affected persons from coming forward. This is why it is imperative that investigations be carried out fairly and independently by the appropriate authorities.

That is why we are working on devising even stronger and more independent mechanisms for reporting misconduct and investigations of such allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are committed to eliminating the culture of toxic masculinity from the Canadian Armed Forces.