Debates of May 17th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member can table his amendment, but to elaborate on it is a point of debate. I want to remind the member and all members in the House that if they have something in writing, whether it is their speech or whether it is amendments or motions, it is always best to ensure that interpretation has access to that and that it is provided to interpretation in order to ensure that every member in the House is fully aware of what is being said. I just wanted to remind members again.

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion or, in the case that he/she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the NDP House leader if he consents to this amendment being moved.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is another muddled mess of an amendment from the Conservatives, so no I do not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Calgary Centre. This time, though, it was so unrelated to the facts that it was quite unbelievable. Here we have a situation where we know we are talking about $8.6 billion in subsidies last year alone. There were record profits in the oil and gas sector and at the same time, people were being gouged at the pumps. The Conservatives do not seem to recognize any of those realities.

I came out of the oil industry and worked at the Shellburn Oil Refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia. I also worked in social enterprise and won a number of business awards. I understand return on investment, but when Canadians are investing $8.6 billion in subsidies, and we are seeing the increasing cost of climate change now reaching billions of dollars a year that impact Canadians right across the country, why do the Conservatives continue to deny the reality of climate change? Why do they continue to deny the reality of subsidies? Why do they deny the reality of the important issue that is before the House today?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague asked a question, although it was a bunch of hyperboles. Let me respond very adroitly: $8.6 billion is not a subsidy number provided. If he wants to understand the definition of what a subsidy is, perhaps he can look it up before he comes in this House and accuses me of an ad hominem like not believing in climate change. That was a ridiculous comment and he should stand down immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not want to challenge the Conservatives on whether they believe in climate change, but the member should get some better acting skills if he is going to pretend he believes in climate change.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that within the Conservative Party, even within the leadership of the party, there is serious concern about some members being climate change deniers. That is just a reality. It might not necessarily be the member who just spoke, but it is an issue within the Conservative Party.

Can the member explain to the House why, when the Conservatives were in administration of the Government of Canada for 10 years, they failed in getting resources to tidewaters on either one of the coasts when it came to pipelines?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not here to litigate what happened over 10 years ago. I do know a handful of pipelines were built in the previous administration, contrary to what the Prime Minister puts on the floor of the House of Commons, which is again complete misinformation. This seems to be allowed in this House, which surprises me and my constituents.

If the member across who asked the question actually wants to look at what is being built in Canada right now, can he tell me why TMX is taking so long to get built? It is because of irregularity of process that his government has introduced in actually getting projects built in Canada. That is why capital is fleeing Canada and why projects do not get built here. It is why there is no investment from private capital.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleague from Calgary Centre was not offended by my little joke earlier. I loved his speech, and I barely missed a second of it.

The Conservative members spoke earlier about the billions of dollars the oil industry reinvests in society, and we have also heard about the extraordinary profitability of the sector. The first quarter of 2022 does show record profits for Canadian oil companies. At the same time, however, consumers are paying exorbitant taxes at the pump and then paying huge subsidies to the industry though their taxes.

I have a very simple question that should be easy to answer. Given the situation, would it not be better to reduce or even stop the subsidies—which I think would be even better—and redistribute the money in assistance to Quebeckers and Canadians? Our fellow citizens are having a hard time with the price of gas, but also with the constantly rising inflation and the impact of the price of gas on the economy overall.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend. It is very important to understand that the recent hike in gas prices is partly a result of the cost of the carbon tax applied by the federal government, currently in Liberal hands.

We have often said that it was time to reduce or defer the carbon tax for Canadian consumers. This tax is now almost 12¢ a litre for Canadian consumers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the mischievous member for Mirabel.

What to say about this motion?

First, I will tell my NDP colleagues that the Bloc Québécois will support their motion, since putting an end to subsidies for fossil fuels is something we have long defended.

When it comes to the issue of oil and gas in Canada, it seems to me that many stakeholders become irrational, so irrational that it feels like this has to do with culture or identity. I do not want to play the “us and them” game, but everyone is familiar with the two solitudes. Many Canadians identify with the gas and oil industry. I could compare that with guns, in the United States, which I see as a symbol of a certain right-wing identity. In Canada, oil is a symbol of a certain Canadian identity. Consider what happened in the last Parliament, and I will not hide the fact that I was blown away. A motion moved by the Conservatives stated that oil is irreplaceable and that we should set aside a day to celebrate it.

The first time I sat in the House and heard some of my colleagues shouting “build a pipeline”, I was taken aback. As a Quebecker, I wondered whether I should be shouting “build hydro towers”. Really, I was not sure what to do. I will go further. On many of my Conservative colleagues’ phones and even on their pins, I see the famous slogan “I love oil and gas”. On my computer, I have a Quebec flag. I admit that I do not feel as invested in the gas and oil sector.

More recently, in March if I remember correctly, the hon. member for Abbotsford said during an opposition day that we should cut gas taxes by 5%. I think that he must be biting his tongue today, since it really is not a good idea to cut taxes by 5% when oil companies are making record profits, as I will show later. However, I do not blame the Conservatives, because at least they are doing it openly. When I hear a Conservative give a speech on the oil and gas sector, I know what to expect.

It is a little more difficult with the Liberals, who keep promising an energy transition, who keep promising to stop subsidizing fossil fuels, but then do the exact opposite. We only have to look at Bay du Nord.

At the Montreal Climate Summit, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said, “I am an activist and an environmentalist. . . . I must represent all Canadians and I have to accept that I won't be able to win all my battles... I know you are disappointed with the Bay du Nord decision”. I wondered why he said that he represented all Canadians. Does that mean that all Canadians disagree that the oil and gas sector poses an environmental problem?

From reading his quote, I get the impression he is making a decision that goes against his beliefs. I am not questioning the environment minister’s beliefs: he has shown that he has a strong environmental ethic. However, in his opinion, what makes sense for Canadians is to accept oil and gas projects. This is what makes me say that talking about the oil and gas industry in Canada is something almost irrational that can paralyze our political process.

We in the Bloc Québécois are somewhat less affected, I admit. Until very recently, we could count on the NDP. However, with the happy and consummated marriage between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the New Democrats will be obliged, and my friend Charlie will like what I say next, even if they condemn the $2.6 billion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot name his colleagues in the House.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague personally called me out, and I do not think he is allowed to do so. If he wants to attack the New Democratic Party for doing its work in general, he can, but he is not supposed to use my name. I am more than proud—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The point is well taken.

I just reminded the hon. member for Jonquière that he cannot name his colleagues in the House.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague was focused on his speech. People were shouting at him while he was speaking, which is why he simply responded without thinking—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. That is a matter for debate. Nevertheless, members cannot name their colleagues in the House.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize: I should have said “my friend”, or simply “the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay”.

We could count on the NDP on issues concerning the oil and gas sector. However, they will be obliged to support the budget, which earmarks $2.6 billion for carbon capture strategies. I will get back to that later.

That prompted the mischievous member for Mirabel to say that the NDP is spending so much time at the Liberals' feet that they are going to get oral thrush, which he thinks explains the dental care plan. I would not go that far, not being as ungenerous as my colleague from Mirabel, of course.

When I look at the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats, I see that, when it comes to the oil and gas sector, our political process is stalled. It is impossible to have a rational debate, as I have witnessed in the past three years. All the same, debates are necessary. To sum all this up in one short sentence, the oil and gas sector is a bottomless pit for public funds.

Earlier, I spoke of the $2.6 billion in the budget for carbon capture and storage. A total of 400 academics signed a letter saying that this technology is not feasible. Several witnesses told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that, from a technical standpoint, it might work for a cement plant or heavy industrial processes, but not for the oil and gas sector. It is a mirage, yet the government will be investing $2.6 billion.

To add insult to injury, people from the oil and gas sector told us that $2.6 billion might not even be enough, and that they would like to be reimbursed for 75% of the associated costs. They are trying to make us believe in low-carbon oil, which is not a real thing. Moreover, they want taxpayers to pay for this low-carbon oil. That is confusing to anyone who is the least bit rational.

The result is that what we are seeing in Canada is the opposite of what we are seeing in every other country. Instead of a “polluter pays” policy, Canada has a “polluter gets paid” policy.

I will conclude by saying that there are two carbon capture projects in Alberta, costing about $2.5 billion, 57% of which comes out of public funds. Canada supports fossil fuels 14 times more than all of the G20 countries. For every $14 billion invested in fossil fuels, Canada invests only $1 billion in clean energy. We know that EDC costs $14 billion a year. The proportion in all the G20 countries is a mere 2.5%. That is completely unacceptable.

Now there is the Trans Mountain project, which was initially presented as an economic project. In my opinion, it is not an economic project; it is a projet meant to appease western Canada. It is completely irrational. The cost started at $12 billion, then ballooned to $21 billion, and now, with the government loan, it has gone up to $31 billion. As my colleagues know, in the 1990s, the automotive industry was given a $10‑billion loan that was later forgiven. That means that $31 billion in public funds is going into Trans Mountain.

In the past few weeks and months, we have watched wealth being transferred from the middle class to the oil multi-billionaires. This is going to have consequences. Suncor reported net earnings of $2.95 billion, while Imperial Oil reaped $1.17 billion, its highest quarterly profit in 30 years. TC Energy made $1 billion in profit, and Chevron was able to quadruple its profits.

This money comes from taxpayers who are paying too much for gas at the pump. The refining margin was 9.4¢ in 2008, but it is 48¢ in 2022. Our Conservative colleagues tell us that we need to reduce the carbon tax, and they often bring up random constituents, like Gilberte Larouche in the backwoods of Alberta, who is having trouble paying for groceries. However, Gilberte Larouche is also having trouble paying for gas, and I do not think that reducing the carbon tax will help her.

I will try to summarize, because I do not have much time left. We need to move as quickly as possible to end the fossil fuel subsidies. What the government is proposing, namely identifying inefficient subsidies, will not work. We need to find a solution to reduce the obscene profits being made in the oil and gas sector.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his support of this motion. I must say that in my 14 years of Parliament, I have never seen the Bloc side with the Conservatives more than I have this Parliament, so it is a pleasure to see it supporting a progressive cause.

I cannot understand how anybody in the House concerned with facts could possibly oppose the motion. It says, “Canadians are paying almost $2 per litre of gas at the pump”, and it is more than that in B.C., actually. It also says, “oil and gas companies are making record profits”, which they are, and “Canada spends 14 times more on...support to the fossil fuel sector than it does for renewable energy”.

Those are all facts, and the motion calls on the government to switch money away from subsidizing oil and gas, whatever the figure is. I understand there may be some differences about what the figure is, but there is no question that the federal government is subsidizing oil and gas, whether it is purchasing the TMX pipeline or otherwise. It also talks about reinvesting that money into renewable energy.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. How can any policy-maker in 2022 deny the urgency of dealing with the climate crisis and oppose measures to transition as swiftly as possible to sustainable forms of energy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's question, but I would like to come back to what he said by way of introduction. He said that he has never seen the Bloc side with the Conservatives more.

What I have seen over the past few weeks is my colleague from Timmins—James Bay refusing to allow the deputy minister of the environment to come back to talk to the committee about Bay du Nord. I cannot understand that. How can someone who claims to support the energy transition not want to question a deputy minister on a decision as appalling as Bay du Nord?

Sometimes there is a lot of bluster in the House. However, when it comes time to take action, many people back down. We are not backing down on our core values just because we agreed with the Conservatives two or three times.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, colleagues know that as a government we have invested literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, going into the billions, in support of a green transition. Historical amounts of funding that we have never witnessed before have been spent on that issue in the last six years alone.

It is important to recognize that there are technologies out there that could provide great benefit to the world and to us here in Canada. The idea of carbon capture is very real.

The member opposite and the Bloc seem to have an opinion, which is why I am asking this question. Does the Bloc party believe there is a need for any investment in the concept of carbon capture?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague from Winnipeg North believes himself when he speaks. I really wonder about that.

With regard to investments in the energy transition, let us not forget the much-touted $17‑billion green recovery plan. The government is investing $17 billion for its entire green recovery plan, but it is investing $30 billion in a single oil project, Trans Mountain.

Your green recovery plan includes the hydrogen strategy. You want to make hydrogen with the oil and gas industry, with strategies—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Jonquière.