Debates of May 17th, 2022

(Le document est déposé.)

Question no 453 —

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

En ce qui concerne Statistique Canada (StatCan) et la note qui se trouve à la fin de son rapport sur l’Indice des prix à la consommation (IPC), publié en mars 2022, selon laquelle l’organisation apportera des changements à la façon de faire le suivi et d’indiquer le prix moyen de 52 produits en vente dans les épiceries canadiennes: a) quels changements précis StatCan met-elle en œuvre; b) à quelle date ces changements entreront-ils en vigueur; c) quels produits seront retirés de la liste et lesquels seront ajoutés; d) les rapports historiques seront-ils toujours disponibles et sera-t-il possible de comparer les prix moyens aux prix en vigueur, et si ce n'est pas le cas, pourquoi pas; e) quelles mesures concrètes, le cas échéant, l’organisation prend-elle pour s’assurer que les Canadiens puissent continuer à comparer les prix de l’IPC à ceux des années précédentes; f) ces changements ont-ils été autorisés ou signés par un ministre ou un représentant d’un ministère du gouvernement et, le cas échéant, quels sont les détails relatifs à l’autorisation donnée, y compris (i) les dates, (ii) l’identité de la personne qui a signé ou autorisé les changements; g) quelles mesures seront mises en place pour que les Canadiens puissent comparer les prix moyens du nouvel IPC avec ceux en vigueur avant la période actuelle de forte inflation, plutôt qu’avec les prix actuels déjà gonflés?

(Le document est déposé.)

Question no 455 —

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

En ce qui concerne le régime de retraite de la fonction publique: a) quelle est la valeur totale des paiements versés à des retraités décédés, ventilée par année depuis 2016; b) parmi les paiements en a), à combien s’élèvent les montants recouvrés à ce jour auprès des successions des personnes décédées; c) quels sont le pourcentage et la valeur des montants encore non recouvrés en a) qui devraient être (i) recouvrés, (ii) radiés; d) quels sont les détails concernant le processus du gouvernement pour recouvrer les paiements de régime de retraite versés aux personnes décédées?

(Le document est déposé.)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) Canadians are paying almost $2 per litre of gas at the pump,

(ii) oil and gas companies are making record profits,

(iii) Canada spends 14 times more on financial support to the fossil fuel sector than it does for renewable energy,

the House call on the government to:

(a) stop using Canadian taxpayers’ money to subsidize and finance the oil and gas sector, including by eliminating financing provided through Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada, and excluding oil and gas companies from the $2.6 billion Carbon Capture Tax Credit, by the end of 2022; and

(b) re-invest savings from both these measures in renewable energy and in help for Canadians struggling with the high cost of living.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

The climate emergency is the existential threat of our time, yet when people are worried about the cost of living, about putting food on the table and about paying rent, it is hard to focus on the climate emergency. At the same time, while Canadians are struggling with the high price of gas and the rising cost of living, big oil companies are making record profits. While Canadians pay $2 at the pump, Imperial Oil made its highest profit in 30 years and Suncor more than tripled its profits, raking in almost $3 billion in the first quarter. Despite these record profits and despite promising to end fossil fuel subsidies, the Liberals continue to hand over billions of public dollars to profitable oil and gas companies, the very same companies that are fuelling the climate crisis. Canadians should not be paying big oil to pollute.

As parliamentarians, it is our job to address these pressing crises, these interconnected issues, to protect our communities and to take action. That is why New Democrats are calling on the government to stop using Canadian taxpayers’ money to subsidize and finance the oil and gas sector, including through Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada and the $2.6-billion carbon capture tax credit, reinvest those savings in renewable energy and provide help for Canadians who are struggling with the high cost of living.

Last year alone, the Liberals gave out $8.6 billion in subsidies and public financing to the fossil fuel sector, over $5 billion through Export Development Canada. Canada gives more public financing to the fossil fuel industry than any other G20 country, handing out 14 times more financing to oil and gas than to renewable energy between 2018 and 2020.

The Liberals have promised to accelerate Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023, but recent testimony from Finance and Environment Canada officials at the environment committee showed that the government has made very little progress on this commitment and still does not even have a clear definition of what an “inefficient fossil fuel subsidy” is, something for which the environment commissioner has consistently criticized the government.

Canada also made a commitment at COP26 in November to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector internationally. The mandate letters for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources include instructions to develop a plan to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including by federal Crown corporations. Despite this being included in those mandate letters, there has been no progress on this commitment.

In the U.S., President Biden has already introduced policies limiting public financing to fossil fuels, within a month of COP26. Earlier this month, a group of 112 environmental organizations, including Environmental Defence, Climate Action Network and Équiterre, sent a letter to cabinet outlining their concerns that the government's commitments on fossil fuel subsidies are not enough to meet Canada's climate targets. Not only that, but these environmental organizations are also worried about the new subsidies and public financing being made available to carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen. They are urging the government to eliminate all subsidies, public financing and financial support to the oil and gas sector by the end of this year.

The Liberals say the right things, but then they fail to act. They promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but they continue to increase them. It is clear that the Liberals are going in the wrong direction with their new $2.6-billion carbon capture tax credit, the largest so-called “climate” item in the budget. In comparison, the one fossil fuel subsidy they eliminated in the budget is worth only $9 million over five years: $9 million versus $2.6 billion.

The tax credit is a massive new subsidy for a carbon capture technology that is not proven at scale and is used as an excuse by oil and gas companies to justify increased production and in turn higher emissions. Reducing the carbon intensity of oil production addresses only a fraction of the life-cycle emissions of a barrel of oil; 80% of emissions occur when the oil is burned. Therefore, using carbon capture for oil and gas production, even in the best-case scenario, which currently does not exist, prevents only 3% to 15% of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.

The Liberals' emissions reduction plan released this spring relies heavily on carbon capture, but carbon capture projects have not been successfully deployed at the scale needed to make them part of a viable pathway to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. More than 80% of the carbon capture projects attempted in the U.S. have ended in failure, and Shell’s Quest carbon capture facility near Edmonton is emitting more greenhouse gases than it captures. It is the equivalent of putting over a million cars on the road.

The IPCC has warned against relying too heavily on unproven technologies such as carbon capture to meet our climate goals. The Liberals will claim that the IPCC says we need carbon capture, but what the IPCC actually says is that while some carbon removal will be needed to reach net zero by 2050, carbon capture is one of the least effective and most expensive options. Experts have also told the environment committee that carbon capture should be reserved as an option of last resort for heavy industry sectors that are hard to decarbonize, such as concrete and steel, but Canada and other countries pushed for carbon removal to have an increased importance in the IPCC’s last report to justify their own flawed approach.

It is very clear that the Liberal government has been listening to oil and gas lobbyists instead of to the science. It ignored the advice of over 400 experts who urged it not to go ahead with the carbon capture tax credit: It refused to even meet with them, but it was happy to meet with big oil, which has lobbied the current Liberal government and met over 6,800 times. Now, despite record profits, big oil is asking for even more government subsidies. Amazingly, at the very same time as Cenovus was announcing $1.6 billion in profits and tripling its dividends to shareholders, its CEO said that the carbon capture tax credit was not enough and that it wanted even more public dollars.

Big oil could not make it any more clear that it does not want to spend a dime of its own money. These profitable oil and gas companies that are fuelling the climate crisis can afford to clean up their own pollution. Canadians should not be paying the price. Not only do we need to stop handing out billions of public dollars to profitable oil and gas companies, but we need to start investing those billions in the real climate solutions we know are so desperately needed to secure a livable planet. Continued subsidies to the oil and gas sector delay climate action, and divert precious resources from the investments in a renewable energy transition and support for the workers and communities that will be affected.

Last month, the IPCC made it clear that the world urgently needs to move away from fossil fuels and make significant investments in renewable energy if we have any hope of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5°C and avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis. Renewable energy technology is ready. It is available, and the costs have decreased significantly, but the government is not making the needed investments. The IPCC said that countries such as Canada need to boost investments in renewable energy by at least a factor of three to meet our climate goals. Instead, the government continues to throw billions at the big oil and gas companies that are fuelling the crisis. Investing in renewable energy, strengthening grids, electrifying infrastructure and having energy-efficiency retrofits will not only help fight the climate crisis, but will also create good, long-term jobs for Canadians in communities across the country and will help make life more affordable.

The Liberals need to stop the public financing of big oil companies now. It is not time for just more empty promises, but real action. If they are really serious about ending subsidies and ending public financing, they can start by eliminating tax credits for oil and gas exploration and development right away, which could bring in almost $10 billion over the next four years. That is $10 billion in savings that could be reinvested in renewable energy and in help for Canadians struggling with the high cost of living.

Canadians are worried. They are worried about the future for their families and future generations. They are worried about how they are going to make ends meet today. We have an opportunity to tackle some of the biggest issues of our time in a way that supports those who are struggling and a way that safeguards our climate for generations to come. I urge every MP to take a look in the mirror—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. I tried to give her a signal, but I am not sure if she saw me.

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, what we have seen over the past number of years from this administration is historical amounts of money being put into the green transition. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years alone. This is a government that is committed to the green transition, and I will get an opportunity to expand on that particular point later.

In this most recent budget, budget 2022, there was a commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that commitment.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 2019 the Liberals promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Instead, they increased them. The Liberals have been in power for almost seven years and have been increasing fossil fuel subsidies to the tune of, on average, $900 million each year. That is just the increase. Now they are providing a new subsidy of $2.6 billion to oil and gas companies that are making record profits. It is hard to believe the Liberal promises when they continue to do the exact opposite of what they say.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague in the NDP for putting forward this motion, and I appreciate the subsidiary of the Liberal Party actually putting forward a motion we can address here in the House of Commons.

I would like to ask the member about some of the numbers. She talked about $8.6 billion being provided by the government in subsidies, yet there is no tangibility of that $8.6 billion actually flowing through the government's accounts. I know that EDC provides some loans: Loans are not gifts, and are market-based from EDC at this point in time.

I have been searching for the actual subsidies provided to this industry and have found virtually none to an industry that provided over $20 billion in 2021, so I would love it if she would do that. I am going to put a definition on here. Would the member entertain a definition for what an inefficient fossil fuel, or any subsidy is, to this motion? Would she entertain that going forward so we can compare apples to apples?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to look at the WTO's definition. It is a internationally recognized definition of what a subsidy is. It includes those kinds of loans and public financing supports to a specific sector that convey a benefit. If we take internationally recognized definitions, such as the WTO's or the UN's, we would actually be including things like the government's recent $10-billion loan for the TMX pipeline. We would be including so many more things than the government actually deems to be a fossil fuel subsidy.

The government has not only promised to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, but it has also promised to eliminate public financing. It has promised to phase out public financing to this sector. This sector is making record profits, and we could be taking those billions of dollars and investing them in the climate solutions that are so desperately needed.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have known about the Liberal government's unfortunate propensity for funding oil and gas for quite some time now. I am glad my colleague moved this motion.

There is one small problem, however. The NDP-Liberal marriage means that the NDP will be forced to vote in favour of the $2.6 billion set aside for carbon capture strategies. Not only will the NDP be voting in favour, but they have asked to cut short the debate.

Does my colleague think that putting the health of the planet at risk is a high price to pay for dental insurance?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly proud that my NDP colleagues and I have pushed the government and used our power in a minority Parliament to not only secure the largest expansion of health care in a generation, but also to secure commitments to a just transition on low-income energy retrofits and on reducing emissions. What this means is that we are going to be pushing the government to fulfill on its commitments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. It is part of the reason we are bringing forward this motion today. I will continue to push the government to take real action to invest at the scale that actually meets the urgency of this crisis.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today as the member for Timmins—James Bay on this very important issue. We are dealing with two major crises right now. One is the question of affordability and the massive prices that people are paying at the pumps, at a time when we see big oil racking up record profits and gouging consumers at the pumps.

The fact is that Imperial Oil announced its best opening quarter in 30 years, with $1.17 billion in profits. Canadian Natural Resources doubled its year-over-year first-quarter results with a profit of $3.1 billion, and Suncor brought home $2.95 billion in quarter one, quadrupling last year's results of $800 million.

Where is all that money coming from? It is coming from Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average who go to work every day and are getting gouged at the pumps. We will never hear the Conservatives talking about price gouging. They have all kinds of theories about how unfair it is for big oil to make record profits while people cannot afford to go to work. It is the same as how the Conservatives are trying to talk about high grocery prices as some kind of Bank of Canada conspiracy on inflation, when, in fact, we learned that Loblaws made record profits this year. They are making money gouging Canadians.

At the same time, of course, big oil continues to get free money from the Canadian taxpayer. It refused to pay $256 million in taxes to municipalities in rural Alberta. It left an abandoned oil well cleanup of over a billion dollars: abandoned wells are leaking planet killers such as methane. It expects the public to pay for that. It is calling on the government to change the basic environmental regulations that protect the Athabasca River system, a fragile ecosystem, so that it can dump the toxic waters from tailings ponds. It never talks about the huge damage that it does from every barrel taken out of the oil sands or the amount of water that is contaminated and held in these tailings ponds, which are larger than the city of Vancouver, but it expects the public to assume those costs.

Of course, we see the $570 million for the methane cleanup. Methane is a planet killer. We all know that. This is something that big oil, with its record profits, could easily have handled, but no: It asked the public to pay to stop the leaking methane. What we saw from the Environment Commissioner's report was that this was used as a subsidy to increase production.

The issue of affordability is one factor, but there is a much bigger factor facing us. We are the first generation in history to actually be in a position to decide whether our children have a future or whether we are going to continue to have cheap gas.

We talk about a climate emergency. It does not even come close to talking about the situation we are in. The UN has released its latest statement calling “a code red for humanity”. It claims “a damning indictment of failed global leadership” on the climate crisis. UN Secretary-General Guterres says that what we are looking at is “an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership.”

He says:

Nearly half of humanity is living in the danger zone—now. Many ecosystems are at the point of no return—now. Unchecked carbon pollution is forcing the world’s most vulnerable on a frog march to destruction—now.

There is nothing theoretical about this. The Economist, which is hardly a left-wing journal, says that we have to act quickly before time runs out. It gives us until 2025 to deal with peak oil. The International Energy Agency, another industry voice, says that given the emergency of the climate crisis, there cannot be any more new fossil fuel projects, yet what we see in the House, and what the Canadian people see, is that climate change denial is the fundamental cornerstone of Canadian economic policy and it is the fundamental cornerstone of the government.

We know that the Conservatives will ridicule any efforts on climate change. We hear them laughing when it is talked about. The issue is with the Liberals, though. The Liberals have made promises because Canadians want someone to do the right thing on the climate crisis. We are not seeing that.

We want to talk about a number of things that we need to break apart on the Liberals' arguments because they are perpetrating a scam on the Canadian people. The idea of net zero by 2050 is an absolute scam.

They went to COP26, where the Prime Minister and the environment minister claimed they would cap emissions. That certainly shocked everyone in Canada because they had not talked to anybody about this emissions cap. We are never going to see that emissions cap. It is not going to happen. Why is it not going to happen? The emissions cap is not going to happen because the Liberals are telling Canadians that they can increase oil production while getting to net zero.

It is a ridiculous proposition, and it is all based on the idea that they were somehow going to decarbonize the oil, but the problem with that is that it is not possible because what is coming out of the oil sands has one of the the highest carbon emissions prints on the planet. Year in and year out, despite all the promises to lower those emissions, it has not happened. A headline in The Wall Street Journal refers to it as among the “Dirtiest Oil” on the planet. Those are the facts.

We can look at the environment minister's latest big green plan, which he said was planned out based on the Canadian Energy Regulator's information. The Canadian Energy Regulator predicts that, under the government's plan, in 2050 the amount of oil that will be produced and burned will be the same as the amount of oil burned and produced in 2019.

Liberals are not moving off the carbon economy. In fact, as the Canadian Energy Regulator says, they are planning a massive increase of up to 1.2 million barrels a day. We have already seen this. We have seen Bay du Nord, with an extra 300,000 barrels a day. We see the money they are pumping into TMX for an extra 800,000 barrels a day.

This is not going to help Canadians at the pumps. This is for export. The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that the primary objective of the government is the supremacy of the market, and the market is exporting Canada's oil and increasing exports to the world market, yet the Liberals claim they are going to get to net zero.

Here is the other part of the scam: Every barrel of oil exported does not count toward Canada's emissions. They are going to come up with some hoodoo numbers to say there are no emissions costs here, but right now, even without the increase of 1.2 million barrels per day, Canada's offshore oil export emissions are more than all of the emissions in every sector in Canada today.

The government says it is not efficient to actually target the full amount of emissions. The fact is that the planet does not care who burns the oil or where it gets burned. The government is committed to driving the oil agenda and giving big oil whatever they ask for to make that happen.

This leads me to the other issue I am very concerned about, which is the so-called “just transition”. It has been very depressing to sit at the hearings on the just transition and see where the government is going on this.

I come from in Northern Ontario where we have lived through unjust transitions. When 4,000 workers lost their jobs in the uranium mines, there was not an alternative. When we lost the entire silver and iron mining economy in Temiskaming, there was not an alternative. The transition then was brutal.

We have seen the economic possibilities. We have Calgary Economic Development and Edmonton Global talking about thousands of new jobs. We also have clean energy tech talking about a 50% increase in clean energy jobs. The problem is that, to get those jobs, we need investment, and the government continues to deliberately underinvest in the new economy, so it is leaving workers high and dry, and it is making vague promises about a transition, but that is not happening.

The clock is ticking. The government, Parliament, leaders in the provinces and our federal leaders are responsible to the next generation as we look at a situation of the planet overheating. The red lines are there, and we have the opportunity and the possibility to transform, but we just do not see the political will. That needs to be challenged.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two points. One is in regard to the resolution the NDP are making in reference to the price of gas. I guess this would be just acknowledging that what is taking place in Europe today is having a profound impact on the cost of gas, and this is, in good part, because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There is a world environment and a world price for oil. I am interested in the member's thoughts on the cost of a litre of gas as a direct result.

The second point deals with the end to fossil fuels, which is a commitment the government to has made to end fossil fuel subsidies by the end of 2023. I would like the member's thoughts on that. It was an item that was listed in the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals did promise, in 2019, to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies, and then they amended it to say “inefficient”. Well, “inefficient” means anything they want it to, such as the $570 million the government gave to the methane cleanup, and we have no proof that the money was actually spent on dealing with methane.

The issue here, in terms of Putin's war, has certainly exacerbated the price of oil. It has created a crisis, and that has to be addressed. However, we were told the government was going to have an electric vehicle plan. We do not even have a plan to get the charging stations. Canadians across Canada would love to buy an electric vehicle, but if they cannot plug it in, what are they going to do?

I am looking at the budget, and I see more support for oil and gas than I see for the clean energy alternatives.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's honesty in saying that he opposes affordable gasoline for Canadians. He wants high gas prices. My question to the member is this: Why will his partners in the Liberal government not also claim victory on this?

The Liberals brought in the carbon tax with the stated purpose of raising gas taxes at the pump. That is what happened. Now they are running for cover and blaming it on Russia.

I will give members one example. In my riding, a litre of gasoline is $2.00 a litre. Across the border, 10 minutes away in Maine, it is $1.50. That is a 50¢ difference. Now, all that gasoline comes from the same place, which is the refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick. Maine does not have a more efficient refinery with harder workers or lower input costs. It is coming from the same place. That difference is all tax.

I would say it is mission accomplished, as they are driving up the price of energy in this country. Why will the Liberals not also claim credit on this and say, “Mission accomplished”?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member has to put on a little circus act and make complete misrepresentations. This is a party that has supported convoy people supporting white replacement theory. This is a party supporting anti-vaxxers. Now, the Conservatives are claiming that we support high gas prices, when we see that they are misrepresenting the carbon tax. Do members know that if Suncor was not carbon taxed, it would pay $830 million instead of the $30 million it pays now?

The carbon tax is not causing this, and we see the price gouging that the Conservatives support time and time again because they are total puppets for big oil's interests.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, whom I quite like.

Often the Conservatives are puppets of the oil and gas sector, but my colleague from Timmins-James Bay is often a puppet of the Liberal Party.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources received an assistant deputy minister of the environment. Unfortunately, he pretended to have technical problems to avoid answering our questions on the Bay du Nord development project.

When I asked that the assistant deputy minister be invited back before the committee, my colleague from Timmins-James Bay was against the idea. He said he did not want assistant deputy minister to come back.

As far as dental insurance is concerned, does my colleague not sometimes feel trapped in the Liberal Party's puppet games?

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty sad to see the Bloc members so angry because they sit in the corner and nobody listens to them any more.

The fact is, we got the largest investment in public health care since Tommy Douglas and, oh boy, does that upset a group that does not want any investments at the federal level, so now they are going to claim that us taking the Liberals on is somehow puppetry.

We are seeing that the Bloc members are not even puppets. They are just an audience, and as an audience, they are not even participating properly and doing their work. They came here to defend Quebec, but we do not see them defending Quebec. It was the New Democrats who stood up to defend the extra seats in the House. They just stood to say, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Before we continue, we are starting to have other members wanting to participate when they should not be participating. I would ask parliamentarians to wait until I recognize them during questions and comments. That is the best way for the House function properly.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has the floor.