Debates of March 23rd, 2023

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has been moving in the right direction, but it must show a lot more ambition to really make a difference, and to really help Canadians and Canadian municipalities adapt to these extreme weather events. I will be watching next Tuesday's budget closely to see where the government will be acting and how much priority it will be putting into climate adaptation.

I know it is always hard for governments to make big investments that might not pay off in the current election cycle, but that is what Canada needs from the federal government now. We need these dedicated funds for adaptation projects in every community. It will save money. It will save livelihoods, and it will save lives.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just add that, as the member said, climate change is affecting communities throughout our country. It is important that we work with our provincial, territorial and indigenous partners as we develop strategies for this.

The member pointed out in the first half of his speech that he has seen investment in his community from the federal government and the provincial government. In my community, I have seen investment in shoreline reconstruction along Lake Ontario as a result of increased weather patterns and weather effects.

This is something that the government is seized with. We will continue to work on it, and I look forward, as he does, to future announcements that the government will make, perhaps next week with its budget for 2023.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical moment. This week, the IPCC issued a final report, a final warning. It says, in no uncertain terms, that we must act now or it will be too late.

One of the report's authors noted, “The message in terms of urgency...is stop burning fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible.” They explain that we are at a crisis point, not because we are lacking some important technology or some important information but because “the sense of urgency has been lacking in the places where the important decisions are made”.

In Canada, that place where important decisions are made is here, in the House of Commons. The government lacks the urgency. It lacks the commitment and it lacks the courage to take the action we need.

The Liberals say they are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet they continue to subsidize the fossil fuel industry. They are handing over billions of dollars to rich oil and gas executives.

I continue to call on the government to end subsidies to oil and gas, and instead invest those billions into clean energy, into climate solutions.

In the United States, the Biden administration has committed to spending $60 billion on clean energy manufacturing. This goes directly into building solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. These are proven solutions.

Climate scientists agree that renewable energies are the best tools we have for reducing our emissions, yet the Liberals are instead giving massive tax breaks to oil and gas companies for unproven technologies that keep the fantasy of increasing oil and gas production alive.

The reality is that the current carbon capture projects in Canada capture only less than 1% of our emissions. The Liberals say that carbon capture technology is one of the many solutions they will use when it comes to fighting the climate crisis, but it happens to be the oil and gas industry's favourite solution. The Liberals' friends at McKinsey have published multiple articles touting CCS as a low-risk piece of the decarbonization puzzle, but according to the IPCC, carbon capture is one of the most expensive and least effective tools.

In fact, the report names wind and solar energy as the most effective solutions for reducing our emissions. If we want to meet our 2030 targets, there is a logical way forward: invest our tax dollars in renewable energy and make the oil and gas industry pay for its own carbon capture and storage.

Experts are already warning that the Liberals' tax credit on carbon capture and storage will be a fossil fuel subsidy, more handouts to an industry making record-breaking profits.

In a report on fossil fuel subsidies, Canada and Saudi Arabia were named the worst performers, handing out the most money to these companies as they make more profit than they have ever made before.

We have now learned that Saudi Arabia lobbied to elevate the role of carbon removal in the latest UN climate science summary report. We also know that Canada lobbied to emphasize the importance of carbon capture in the last IPCC summary report, which begs the question, why is the Liberal government acting like a petrostate when Canada has a diversified economy?

Why are the Liberals doing the oil and gas lobby's dirty work? Why are they making Canadians pay billions to clean up the oil and gas industry's emissions?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know the countless number of initiatives the government has taken with respect to climate change and reducing our carbon footprint. The member should also know that the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change talked about a portion of that being specifically about carbon capture.

I will read to her the exact quote. It says, “A net-zero energy system...can only be achieved with a broad suite of technologies. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage...is only a group of technologies that contributes to both reducing emissions in key sectors directly and removing CO2 to balance emissions that are challenging to avoid—a critical part of 'net' zero goals.” That is from the report, specifically.

The member should also know, and it is interesting because this did come up in the debate earlier today, that the finance committee did make a recommendation to the government to do exactly what she was saying, which is to reduce the fossil fuel subsidies and to put that money into renewable transition, specifically as it relates to a cleaner environment and a cleaner energy supply.

When it comes to reducing the fossil fuel subsidies specifically, it might not be as quickly as we would like to see it. In my personal opinion, I might agree with the member more than she thinks, but the reality is that the government has been reducing the amount of fossil fuel subsidies over the year. The problem is that when the NDP members talk about this, they specifically include, in that calculation, money that is being used for abandoned or orphaned wells. The reality of the situation is that, although I would have loved to see the companies that abandoned those wells deal with them, they have not. A lot of them have left, so it becomes society's responsibility to deal with those wells, despite the fact that we let those companies get away with it in years and decades gone by.

When we talk about fossil fuel subsidies, I think it is disingenuous to do what the NDP does and include the money that is being used to deal with orphaned wells in that as a subsidy. If we exclude that, it clearly shows that the subsidies have been declining year after year and are on target to meet what the minister and the department have been proposing for the last number of years.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, even without the orphaned well cleanup, there are billions of dollars being handed out to profitable oil and gas companies every year. The member did not answer my question about why the government is doing the oil and gas lobby's dirty work. Perhaps, since I have the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader here, I will ask another question on another topic.

The recent allegations about foreign interference are incredibly serious. They further erode confidence in our electoral systems, and the Liberals, today, voted against a public inquiry. They do not seem to see the damage they are doing to individuals and also to communities that are at risk of being stigmatized. We need a transparent, independent public inquiry. At this point, it is the only way to get to the bottom of this.

Will the member commit to pushing for a transparent, independent public inquiry?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I know there have been a couple of instances where members have brought in issues and then asked different issues as they come here. We have ruled that we would rather members stick to what they have booked, so I will leave it to the discretion of the hon. parliamentary secretary to answer or not.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem answering that question. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the ruling.

I have been very clear. I said in a speech earlier today in the House that when the issue first came to light, being on the procedure and House affairs committee, I initially asked myself why we are not having a public inquiry. It makes the most sense. However, expert after expert and witness after witness who came before the committee told us the best place to deal with highly classified information is not in the public domain. They full-on said they cannot provide any more information to a public inquiry than they can to that committee because of the sensitivity of the information. It is not the answer I was hoping to hear, but it is an answer that makes sense, and it is an answer that I think warrants consideration.

Having said all of that, the Prime Minister has appointed a special expert, the former governor general David Johnston, to look specifically at this issue. If the former governor general, the expert looking at this, determines the best way forward is a public inquiry, the Prime Minister and this government have said that they will accept that recommendation. We will leave it in the hands of an expert, in the incredibly well-deserved position that the former governor general was given, to make that determination.

Democratic Institutions

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the current government to stop the delays and its unexplained reluctance to shine a spotlight on foreign interference. Foreign operatives have been interfering in Canada's political system, in party nomination processes and in election campaigns to place Chinese Communist sympathizers in the provincial legislature and the House of Commons. Media have seen reports indicating that Liberal Party officials and elected representatives have been involved. We are also aware of reports that have involved a member of the federal cabinet.

The situation is not new. The Prime Minister, various cabinet ministers and senior members in the PMO were briefed about foreign actors and individuals who are complicit in illegal activities. However, the response from the Prime Minister has been to deflect this serious issue and delay doing anything.

Now, he has finally taken some action by appointing a special rapporteur to investigate foreign interference. However, it is not exactly clear what investigatory powers have been given to Mr. Johnston. While an individual of impeccable character, perhaps with the exception of his bad choice of charitable boards, Mr. Johnston will be handcuffed and saran-wrapped if unable to investigate the inner activities of the Liberal Party's elected and non-elected members. It would be unimaginable for the special rapporteur to have no authority to fully investigate the stated primary beneficiary of foreign interference: the Liberal Party of Canada. Why, then, has there been such reluctance by the Prime Minister to have a full independent public inquiry?

In other countries, there would not be a special rapporteur. There would be a special prosecutor who would have full investigatory powers, including interviewing political party members, subpoena powers and powers to examine documents.

Why is the government allowing Canada to become a doormat for foreign powers? Why is it extending protection to those who have deliberately interfered in our country's democratic processes? How is it possible for the Prime Minister to turn a blind eye to thugs who have intimidated and threatened Canadian citizens of Chinese heritage in the greater Vancouver and greater Toronto areas? How can the government ignore shady and undeclared financial contributors and buses of instant just-add-water Liberal nomination supporters and paid volunteers to assist China's chosen candidates to get nominated and elected to all levels of government?

The goals of the foreign operatives are simple: Their first goal is to infiltrate political parties, assisting selected candidates to obtain elected positions from which they could support Beijing's interests. Their second goal is to defeat opposition nomination candidates and/or elected representatives who are not favourable to Communist China, or prevent them from being elected.

Is the Prime Minister's continuing reluctance to do something in the face of such mounting evidence a result of being worried about what may come out of a full inquiry? Perhaps he is troubled by the growing suspicions being cast on cabinet, caucus and party members. What is worrying our Prime Minister? What has made him turn a long blind eye? Would not the mounting evidence and allegations of foreign interference provide valid concerns to the Prime Minister? Is he worried about political fallout from the interference and his reluctance to do something? Is he worried that others in his party will be implicated?

Obviously, one must protect Canada's intelligence service networks and their methods of acquiring information, but when the network starts leaking information to the media about foreign interference, it kind of suggests they have lost faith in their political masters and their ability to do something about foreign interference.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, the member should try to educate himself on the difference between evidence and allegations.

The member used the term “mounting evidence”. Those were his words. There is no evidence to date. As a matter of fact, the RCMP has said that it does not have any active investigations ongoing. What there have been are allegations. If the member is unaware of the difference between allegations, information and intelligence versus evidence, he should really take the time to educate himself on that.

What I think is even more remarkable about the member's speech is the massive misunderstanding of the reality of the situation when he opened his speech by saying that the government has done virtually nothing. That is categorically false. As a matter of fact, this government is the only government that has ever done anything on this issue.

I will inform the member what we have done since 2015. We introduced Bill C-76, which was a bill that tightened up financing rules and tightened up on opportunities for foreign interference specifically. The Conservatives, who this member seems to be cozying up a lot to lately, actually voted against that.

The other thing we did was install a special panel of experts who have the ability to monitor, in real time, what is going on during a writ period. They have the opportunity to assess, make decisions, inform parties, gather intelligence from political parties and take action when necessary. That is a panel that never existed before. Most importantly, after the election is over, a third party prepares a report based on the panel's information. That third party concluded, both after the 2019 and 2021 election, that the elections were done in a free, fair, open and transparent manner and were not influenced by foreign interference.

Finally, on the member's issue about the public inquiry. Perhaps the member did not hear my answer to the impromptu question from the NDP member just before him, but I laid it out very clearly. On the experts that the member gave a lot of credit to in his speech, and he sang the praises of CSIS saying that we have to respect its processes, I can tell him that CSIS came to the PROC committee and specifically told us that the place to do this is not in a public inquiry. We have the established organizations, such as NSICOP, which is another thing this government put together, that specifically looks at, and has the ability for parliamentarian oversight over, highly classified information. That is the best place that we were told it should go.

However, notwithstanding that, and understanding the incredible position and incredible attention that Canadians are seized with on this issue, the Prime Minister went a step further and said that even though our experts were telling us that a public inquiry is not the best place, we understand that we need to put this in a non-partisan environment and will allow a special expert, the former governor general David Johnston, to determine what the best path forward is. As I said to the previous member, if it is determined that the best way forward is through a public inquiry, the Prime Minister has already said that we will accept that recommendation and proceed with it based on his advice.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a party line being towed here. The problem is, what party line, the Liberal Party's or the Communist Party of China's?

I call upon the government to step up and provide strong investigatory powers through the special rapporteur so that Mr. Johnston can unearth names and evidence of foreign interference in Canada, especially in Vancouver and Toronto during the last two elections.

Canadians deserve and demand to know what is going on. They want to see concrete action taken to protect our political and democratic processes and institutions from foreign manipulation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood that member correctly, he just questioned whether I was towing a Liberal Party line or a Communist Party of China line.

My response to that member is this: Let us go outside and he can say that to me in public where he does not have the parliamentary privilege he has in this room.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Friday, March 10, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:32 p.m.)