Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.
Mr. Trost asked a question: if a business is profitable, why does it need a subsidy? I think it's a valid question.
We see that the federal government has given $500 million in subsidies that have gone to CCS technologies, $1.3 billion in oil industry subsidies. I could redirect the question to Mr. Trost. If these businesses are profitable, why do they need subsidies?
Following that, in the 2011 joint report of the IEA, OPEC, OECD, and World Bank on fossil fuel and energy subsidies, there was a recommendation made to Canada to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.
As you said, there can be signals given to industry. Subsidies can act as signals.
I would ask Mr. Gradek and Mr. Nelson this: you mentioned before that the oil sands seemed to be focused solely on increasing production, so what does a no-strings-attached $1.3 billion subsidy to the oil industry give as a signal from the federal government to the oil sands? Do you think it tells them without the environmental piece in place, “Go ahead, increase production, increase growth. We're going to let you go ahead and do what you want”, and we lose that value-added piece that you too could add to that industry?