Debates of Dec. 10th, 2024

Public Safety

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada continues to prioritize security at our borders and integrity within our immigration system.

I reiterate that all people applying to IRCC must meet specific requirements. All foreign nationals are screened before entering Canada. IRCC also collaborates with its partners to conduct thorough security screening. Admissibility decisions are evidence-based and are in place to identify those who might pose a threat to Canadians, while facilitating the safe travel of those who pose no risk. Canada collaborates with international partners to securely exchange immigration data and personal information of applicants. This enhances security, supports informed decisions and promotes legitimate travel.

Through the many steps taken by the government and IRCC, we will continue to protect our border and maintain a fair, well-managed immigration system.

Natural Resources

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my late show, I just want to acknowledge that I am joined this week by my daughter, Jada. I was really happy to have my 12-year-old out here with me for the week, so I just want to give a quick shout-out to her.

I was also honoured this week to be able to host the U18 Shaunavon Badgers hockey team here in Ottawa. We had a quick little tour on the floor this morning. I really enjoyed doing that. They have a game tonight at 10 o'clock against the Ottawa Sting. I believe they are a rep B level team, so I am looking forward to that game tonight.

When I got up to ask a question of the Minister of National Resources, it was with regard to the government's emissions cap. I have talked to people from the area around Shaunavon, in particular. Even those young men earlier today talked a lot about what the future of our country looked like.

When we look at policies like the emissions cap that the government is implementing, we have seen from independent analysis that it is going to be a production cap. I know the parliamentary secretary, when he stands up, is going to say that it is a cap on emissions and not a cap on production. However, the proof is in the pudding. We have seen multiple reports already by several groups saying that the emissions cap will amount to a one million barrels per day reduction in oil production, so we have already seen that there is going to be a reduction in the amount of oil that is produced in this country due to the emissions cap.

Why is that a big deal? It is a big deal because a million barrels per day would amount to a 1% hit to Canada's GDP. Coming up next Monday we are going to hear from the finance minister finally on the supplementary estimates. She has not told us what the deficit is going to be, but she did say that, because the PBO said we have room for a 1.5% swing in GDP, everything is fine and it does not matter how big the deficit is; it will be okay.

The reality is that, when we implement policies that blow a 1% hole in this already right off the top before we even get to this 1.5%, we know we are going to be operating within a very tight margin. What is going to happen to the spending power of the average Canadian after this production cap hits Canadians fully is that it will amount to $420 a month per Canadian household in disposable income that they will not have access to. They are going to lose $420 per month based on those numbers. That is important because, when we look at the forecast for the cost of food for 2025, grocery prices are going to go up on average $800 per Canadian family.

When we factor bad policy A with bad policy B and with things like the carbon tax and the Liberal fuel standards, we are seeing a continual assault on the cost of living for Canadians. When we look at the energy security of our country, we are seeing around the world right now that energy security is of utmost importance. When we see what the oil and gas sector does for Canada, the strategic advantage that we have with our natural resources, and we see policies put in place like the emissions cap that are going to cost 115,000 jobs for Canadian workers, we see the 1% hit in GDP and we see the multiple billion dollars that are going to be lost in the Canadian economy because of this singular bad policy. However, if we add that on top of the other pancaking of bad policies from the government, Canadians are going to be worse off.

How can the government seriously look Canadians in the face, Canadians who are looking to the future in their small towns, and even in our country at large, and say that this is going to be a good policy when it is going to hamper and strike down the futures of Canadians?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague in welcoming his daughter Jada to the House of Commons and to Ottawa. As well, I would like to join my colleague in welcoming the Shaunavon Badgers to Ottawa. Since there is no Milton team in the tournament, I presume, I can cheer for the Shaunavon Badgers.

Is it the Badgers, Jeremy?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

It is the Badgers, okay.

Mr. Speaker, I am a big fan of sports and I love that we celebrate that collectively, as we did last week when our Olympic and Paralympic teams were here. It was a nice moment of non-partisan celebration here in the House of Commons for everyone.

On to the issue of the day, which is the emissions cap that our government has proposed very proudly. We are one of the first oil and gas producing nations to propose an emissions cap. Before I start, I would like to acknowledge one thing my colleague said. He said that I would say it is not a production cap. He is indeed correct; it is not a cap on oil and gas production. It actually accommodates a more than 16% increase in production.

Many of the products in the oil patch, certainly not all of them, but some of them, have the highest emissions intensity in the world of certain types of projects. Those mostly include projects that are not in the province where my colleague resides but mostly in the oil sands in Alberta, where there is bitumen production. The emissions intensity in the oil sands has actually gone up. Alberta has acknowledged it needs to have an emissions cap. We can have a conversation as to where that should be, but no sector in Canada should be entitled to unlimited pollution. I do not believe any sector should be able to operate in the absence of any regulations around how much it pollutes. I am also, like my colleague, concerned about the future of our planet and our country. I am also concerned about our economy and that climate change is having a really negative impact on our economy.

Food reports have come out from various organizations and agencies recently, and all of those have pointed to climate change as the leading cause of food inflation. The Conservatives have recently kind of leaned in the direction of misinformation when they have talked about the difference in food inflation rates between Canada and the United States. I would like to call them out on that because they continually provide false information and false narratives around the difference in food inflation between Canada and the United States. Canada and the United States have very similar rates of food inflation: the United States in the absence of a federal price on pollution, and Canada with a federal price on pollution. All of these things are very measurable. It is not a new thing.

We have been pricing carbon in Canada in various ways for over a decade and we know that with the so-called axe the tax campaign, if we were to reduce or eliminate carbon pricing entirely in Canada, it might save Canadians about 50¢ on $100 worth of groceries. It would also cost them the Canada carbon rebate.

Back to the issue of the day, which is the cap on emissions in the oil and gas sector. We have to use absolutely all of the tools in our tool box to combat pollution. On November 4, our government introduced the proposed regulations to cap greenhouse gas pollution from the oil and gas sector, which would drive innovation and create jobs in the oil and gas sector. We have been very clear that the pollution cap would work to curb pollution and not production. It would drive investment; create good, new jobs; grow a strong and greener economy; and encourage many of those energy products that we need for both our economy and our day-to-day lives, to heat our homes, drive our cars and deliver our goods. We also need to ensure that those emissions go down. We also have to keep reminding Conservatives that the cap on emissions will allow, and actually encourage, production to expand by 16% by 2030.

I have more to say, but I know there will be an opportunity for a rebuttal. Once again, these regulations would set reduction levels at 35% below 2019 levels by 2030 and that is a good thing for future generations.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Before I go to the hon. member, I want to point out one of the reasons I gave a hand signal that might have been misinterpreted. Although we are all Badgers fans, and there was a really respectful debate between the two members, I want to mention that it is important not to refer to members by their first or last names in this place. Out of respect, we refer to them by their position title or the name of their riding.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are already starting to see the effects of these bad policies the government is putting in place. Enbridge is investing $700 million in an American pipeline down in Texas. Shortly after the American election, TC Energy approved over a billion dollars' worth of capital spending on three natural gas plants.

We know Canada has a strategic advantage for producing natural gas, but particularly for producing liquefied natural gas. We have a cold climate, as we are experiencing outside right now, which is strategically advantageous for trying to produce it. We are also the closest point to Europe and Asia, so logistically, it makes the most sense to be producing LNG in Canada. If we have our main energy-producing companies going down to the United States, and these companies also are the largest investors in wind turbines, solar farms and things like that, the current government is chasing that investment out. There is going to be nothing left when the government is done.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will not be surprised to hear that I disagree that effective climate policy, climate action and emissions reductions are chasing away investment. They do not. They do the opposite, in fact. The world wants cleaner and greener electricity. The world demands cleaner and greener energy, oil products and fuels, and that is where we have to go. Many of the oil companies, and the member mentioned some of them, are doing a lot of these things on their own. Certainly, with respect to the LNG sector, they are constantly looking for ways to innovate and to create a greener, cleaner fuel supply chain.

I would ask my colleague from Saskatchewan if he shares the sentiment of the Premier of Saskatchewan, who has said that he has considered alternatives to carbon pricing but sided against those because he has decided that they are too expensive. More recently, he said that people often come to him and say that Saskatchewan has the highest carbon emissions per capita in Canada, but “I don't care”.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:23 p.m.)