Debates of May 17th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member refer in her speech to the same misinformation we identified earlier when we talked about a lie, which was propagated by a subsidiary of Tides International. It is the only place where this “14 times” number comes up. I hope she is happy, in this House of Commons, as she and her colleagues continue to repeat that misinformation, but they should recognize what it is.

I am going to challenge the member on the whole thing: on carbon capture, utilization and storage, because she talked about it being at a demonstration level only in Canada. She also referred to the Shell Quest facility. Shell Quest is using the technology it has at Edmonton in the Northern Lights project that is offshore of Norway, which has a better tax regime than Canada with respect to carbon capture, utilization and storage. Can she comment on why we have developed technology in Canada that is now leaving to be exploited around the world in other environmental countries that are approaching the same problem?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not realize the member was a scientist. I did not realize we should trust someone who is frankly right in the pockets of big oil instead of the scientists who have brought forward the evidence. The last time I checked, I would rather trust the scientists than the Conservatives.

Let me say this on the issue of carbon capture. If that is the technology to be used, as the member suggests, why does the oil and gas industry not pay for it itself? Why does it need a subsidy from the Canadian government? I hope the member realizes that money should be invested in communities and Canadians who need that support and are being gouged right now at the pumps.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the speech denouncing the use of carbon capture technologies, which will benefit the oil companies. However, there is something I do not understand. I would like the member to explain to me how she can condemn this practice and at the same time praise it in the last budget.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I get the hon. member to respond, I just want to indicate that if anybody has any questions or answers or comments, they should wait until I recognize them. Otherwise, I would ask them to be quiet until such time as I acknowledge their presence in the House.

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of the NDP negotiating with the government on the supply and confidence agreement, we have advanced the notion to call on the government to end the oil and gas subsidies. We got a bit, only $9 million, in terms of a return, but of course the government went and gave a giant gift to the oil and gas sector. That does not mean to say we will not continue to strongly advocate for this and to call the government out whenever it steps in the wrong direction. That is why we have this motion on the floor today. I hope all members of the House will support it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge. As usual, it is a privilege to rise this afternoon to speak to the NDP opposition motion moved by my hon. colleague from Victoria.

In principle, the motion has three elements. It recognizes that the price of gas is high, at more than $2 a litre in some regions in the country, and that that is affecting affordability across the country. The motion points out that energy companies are making profits, especially with the high price of basic energy products. The motion calls for the elimination of the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage that was presented in the budget by the Minister of Finance and for the savings from that measure to be reinvested into helping Canadians.

I will talk about the motion, but I will also use my time to talk about the broader issue of affordability and the energy transition in Canada and in the world.

I represent a rural riding where a good number of my constituents do not have access to public transit. This conversation on affordability and the ability to use public transit for work and pleasure is an important public policy concern.

As far as affordability is concerned, I would like to share with my colleagues that my father was a truck driver and my mother is an administrative assistant. We were a low-income family. One of the reasons I decided to join the Liberal Party and run as an MP is because of the work this government has done to support low- and middle-income families. I want to give some examples of how our government has done that since taking office in 2015: We created the Canada child care benefit, enhanced old age security, reversed the Conservative plan to change the eligibility age from 67 to 65, and strengthened the guaranteed income supplement.

We also introduced national child care, and we had the opportunity to see that rolled out across the country. That is something that this government has focused on because it helps support affordability for families paying for child care costs. It is also an important economic driver. It had been talked about for a long time, but it was this government that stepped up, showed leadership and made it happen across the country.

I was not part of it, but from 2015-19, in the 42nd Parliament, the first thing this government did was to lower taxes for lower and middle-income Canadians and increase them for the wealthiest one percent in the country. Indeed, this government has invested significantly in the Canadian housing benefit, trying to support individuals with rental costs and their ability to put a roof over their heads.

I could go on with the programs I am proud of from this side. That is not to say that all issues are solved or that affordability writ large is taken care of, but I am proud of the record on this side of the House, and of the plans and programs we have introduced because they are making a difference in the lives of Canadians across the country.

Let us talk about the inflation issue because it is an important piece to raise. I would suggest that from where I sit in the House, there is no one silver bullet solution to inflation. In fact, history has shown that to be the case, but let us first examine the reasons why we are seeing inflation across the economy and recognize that this is not just a Canadian problem. This is being recognized across the world, in Europe and in the United States. Indeed, the inflation we are experiencing is challenging and impacting us in Canada, but it is actually lower than in other jurisdictions around the world.

It is happening, in part, because of the war in Ukraine. We heard, in question period, the Associate Minister of Finance talk about the importance of supporting Ukraine and being able to support them in their fight against Russia. The war and the conflict is having cascading impacts that are creating inflationary pressure around the world. We have to remind Canadians that this is being perpetuated by the Russian Federation, namely, Vladimir Putin.

There has also been a supply chain disruption, and it has been talked about at great length. The pandemic has created those challenges. They are not easily reversed. I would also submit that the changing geopolitical situation will also have reverberations on how our supply chains have traditionally operated prior to the pandemic and, indeed, prior to the war in Ukraine.

On government spending, governments around the world, including this one, were compelled to step up to support their citizens and make sure that they were taken care of. We were asking individuals to do their part to stop the spread of COVID-19 until we had access to a vaccine and until we had the work that had to done by the scientific community. This government makes no qualms about the fact that we stepped up for Canadians. Eight dollars out of every 10 were provided by this government. That was to help provinces and territories, municipal governments, businesses, and individuals.

Undoubtedly, the global community stepping up to help support citizens put additional liquidity into the market. I think that has led, in part, to some of the inflationary pressures we have seen.

On the aging workforce, I think this is something we have not discussed to the extent that it should be discussed in the House. We have labour challenges. We have heard that in large detail, in the 44th Parliament, about some of the challenges.

That is not just Canada. That is the western world, as we have a large baby boomer demographic that is making its way to retirement. That is creating challenges in employment, which has, as well, an inflationary pressure on wages. In some cases, that can be really important for lower wages, in terms of lower hourly wages, but it is undoubtedly putting on some of that inflationary pressure. That is part of what we have seen.

As we can see, it is nuanced. There is not one single thing we can point to. It is a variety of circumstances that have presented themselves for a long time and, indeed, in the last couple of years to where we find ourselves.

The question becomes how best to address it. History suggests that it is not easy. Do we spend more money to give individual households some of the affordability measures that they might need? Of course, I think most of us would agree that, in principle, this sounds great. History has shown that when the economy is hot, providing additional support to households, notwithstanding that we want to do that, in some cases, can actually reverberate some of the inflationary pressure that we have seen, particularly when there is a lot of liquidity in the market, with money supply.

On interest rates, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates and, indeed, that is seen as one way, from an economic theory. If we raise interest rates, it can have a cooling effect on the economy to bring inflation down, but that has an impact on the affordability element for individuals who might hold debt, in terms of their monthly mortgage payments and some of their bills on that side.

I guess, at the end of the day, what I would say is that the question of inflation and affordability is an important one. There is no easy solution, but when I look at the text of this motion, which is talking about taking away a program that the government has introduced for our energy sector to reduce emissions, for us to able to meet our emissions reduction plan, which was introduced a couple months ago by our Minister of Environment, I do not think that this is the best public policy approach.

I agree that we need to have important conversations about what the government can do to support affordability and to support Canadians who are having challenging times, but taking away a program that is designed to incentivize the energy sector to reduce emissions and ensure that we are competitive heading into 2050 is the wrong approach.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's riding includes Windsor, which is where my grandmother was born and raised. As he said, it is not a wealthy riding. I just checked, and the median income there is $31,000, which means more than half of his constituents were too low-income to benefit from the Liberals' much-vaunted tax cut for the middle class.

All this is to say, I am just wondering if he could comment on the fact that we have multinational oil companies making billions of dollars in profits while we are spending tax money to support them. We are doing this, in various ways, to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

How can he justify that, with where we are in the world today, when we have to move away from the oil and gas sector? Why are we supporting these very profitable companies with tax dollars?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, indeed, we are very blessed to have deep connections to Windsor. It is a beautiful township, which I have the privilege of representing.

I will try to address the question twofold. The member opposite talked about some of the tax credits and incentives this government is putting in. I have said in this House before that I believe there will be an oil and gas industry in 2050. The oil and gas market will be much reduced globally, but Canada has a role to work with energy companies to help reduce emissions to be able to also position them on competitive footing heading into 2050. Canada still has a role to play in that market.

The question I would then ask back, and I have posed it to the NDP before, is this: Where do we stop? If not oil and gas, do we have other roles in working with the private sector? It has made it very clear it is against oil and gas on public financing and support for reducing emissions. Should that extend to other sectors? It is not clear to me based on the responses so far.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about Canada's role not ending anytime soon when it comes to fossil fuels and what we provide the world. I want him to perhaps speak to the geopolitical role Canada plays with energy production and supplying energy to our allies.

It was at a meeting in Prince George where I heard the Japanese ambassador imploring Canada to supply natural gas to Japan. Certainly we hear about carbon a lot, and that is an important conversation to have, but we rarely hear the geopolitical conversation about Canada's role in providing that energy to our allies.

I would like the member to speak to that, please.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, in a world where we are going to see a smaller role for oil and gas, and I think the International Energy Agency has said that, my thoughts are we actually need to work with the Canadian energy sector to make sure its emission intensity per barrel is some of the lowest in the world. That comes back to the CCUS and how important that is.

We also, undoubtedly, need to make a transition. I am just trying to be realistic in that I believe this product will still be important. Canada is the fourth-largest oil producer in the world and the fifth-largest for gas. How can we work to reduce emissions so Canada still has a role in the energy that will still be needed?

To the geopolitical piece, our role right now in the world has to be engaging with our allies to find opportunities to provide energy security, which would include natural gas in the short term. Longer term, it will be hydrogen and working on critical minerals to support energy transition. It is a really important question, and I hope we can continue with it here in the House.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would not want to be in any Liberal members' shoes right now, because they are stuck having to defend the indefensible. Trans Mountain was supposed to cost $4 billion, but now it is up to $20 billion. Then we have the Bay du Nord deal, along with everything else.

Canada is the fourth largest oil producer in the world, with 5.23 million barrels per day. Canada gives 14 times more financial resources to the fossil fuel sector than to the renewable energy sector. How can my colleague explain that?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would normally respond in French, but I will speak in English so as to be very clear. It is very easy for that member to suggest that Canada being the fourth-largest oil producer is a bad thing. That is the way he framed it.

This is a resource that has been extremely beneficial from Victoria to Newfoundland and Labrador, and everywhere in between, including in his home province. We have an obligation to work with the Canadian energy sector to make sure it is on competitive footing and reducing emissions, while also transitioning to technologies to transition to lower-emission fuels as part of our commitment to net neutrality in 2050.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here and it is wonderful to be speaking to this opposition day motion brought forth by the member for Victoria. I would like to start off by framing this opposition motion the way I view it.

When I think of a trifecta and of the energy industry where we are, both domestically and globally, and how it relates to affordability and where gas prices are today, I think of three things. I think of energy security, which means security of supply and also security of work. I think of energy affordability, which means being able to afford the energy we buy. We have seen the prices of commodities rise globally due to supply chain bottlenecks and the barbaric invasion of Ukraine by Putin's regime, which imperils energy affordability. Then, we talk about decarbonization. I think of energy security, energy affordability and then a longer-term transition where we have decarbonization. That is important because, when we think about it, Canada is an energy leader.

This morning, I spent some time researching what I wanted to say this afternoon. I went to the Natural Resources Canada website and looked at the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”. There is some great information out there for policy wonks and people who want to understand just how important both the renewable and non-renewable energy industries are to Canada and Canadians from coast to coast to coast. According to the “Energy Fact Book 2021-2022”, produced on the Natural Resources website, direct to indirect jobs total 845,000 folks. These are hard-working middle-class Canadians who earn their livelihoods from this industry. That is very important to understand.

The investments that are taking place, just on the renewable side or clean energy, have totalled roughly $80 billion to $100 billion every year for the past several years. I was looking at the numbers: the total was $92.1 billion in 2021. That is wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro, solar and tidal. There is this industry in Canada that we need to be extremely proud of, and that I am very proud to support and to speak about on this opposition day motion, from which Canadians are earning their livelihoods. People are putting their kids in school. They are paying for their hockey lessons and swimming lessons, and we are here to support them.

The opposition day motion talks about ending any sort of financial support to the fossil fuel sector. Our budget that we produced states, I believe, that by 2023 there will be no more direct financial support provided to the energy sector, when we talk about the non-renewable side. When we think about energy security, we must think about Canada and areas such as the western Canada sedimentary basin. I know some of my colleagues on the opposite side come from these areas, and I am from British Columbia originally. There are literally tens of thousands of kilometres of pipeline in that area that are moving gas everywhere in North America. In fact, it is being exported via LNG sites in the United States to Europe at this time and helping our European allies. We need to consider that. It is easy to criticize an industry when one thinks it is fun to do so, and I use that word carefully. I do not. There are 845,000 Canadians tied to this industry.

In reference to the carbon capture tax credit, the third pillar I spoke about was decarbonization. With respect to decarbonization, to me the story is to lower greenhouse gas emissions both domestically and globally. We do not want leakage. We will do that in a manner where we work with stakeholders, including industry. Industry has these roughly 845,000 Canadians who earn their livelihoods from the energy industry. That, to me, is what is called “responsible leadership”. That, to me, is doing the right thing and moving this needle and yardstick in the right direction.

In fact, in our budget, and I look forward to seeing the full details in the fall economic statement, we will introduce a new tax credit for investment in clean technology of 30% for zero-emission technologies and battery storage; in clean hydrogen, which is very exciting; and in blue hydrogen, which I have been learning a lot about in the past few weeks. It is very important.

What I think of as the three pillars are energy security, energy affordability and decarbonization. We are on a track that I am proud of, the emissions reduction plan, which is under the umbrella of Bill C-12: the net-zero accountability act. It is accountable, it is tangible and it lays out a framework so that we can decarbonize our economy and, yes, lower greenhouse gas emissions.

To my hon. colleagues in the NDP and the member for Victoria, when I think about affordability, yes, gas prices are absolutely high. Yes, they are absolutely pinching Canadians. We must demonstrate empathy. I know that. I live in the suburbs outside of Toronto, and everyone in my neighbourhood drives two or three vehicles. They have to get their kids to school and sports and they have to drive them home. We understand that and I understand that, but inflationary forces, be they supply chain bottlenecks or how refineries operate, which would take another hour to explain on the refinery margins part, fracking and NAC and all that stuff, and what has happened with Russia's barbaric invasion of Ukraine have driven up prices across the board. Even the Europeans have reached out by saying they need more gas. That is the energy security component.

On the affordability component for my hon. colleague for Victoria, I think about the Canada child benefit that we introduced in 2015, which all parties voted against, including the New Democratic Party. It benefits the residents of my riding in the amount of over $60 million a month. Almost $7,000 can help a family with one child earning below a certain amount. We returned the old age security and GIS eligibility to age 65. In June and July, over three million Canadians will be receiving a 10% increase in their old age security payments, bringing it up to $766. That is how to help on the affordability side, particularly at a time when inflationary forces are elevated, and we must be cognizant of that.

For seniors who are concerned about how they are going to pay their dental bills, we are going to go down that route, just as we got national child care done after the Conservatives scrapped it many years ago. It is going to benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast and allow for greater and higher labour force participation rates by parents. It will be a boost to our labour supply and good for our productive capacity. We will do the same thing on dental care. We will ensure seniors and individuals who do not have insurance or a copay will benefit from that. Our government has been there for Canadians, and we need to continue to be there.

On the recovery from COVID, as I said, we were there for Canadians and we had their backs. We must work with all industries as we come out of COVID, which we have been, and we must keep our eye on the ball that climate change continues to be the transition in front of us, independent of what is happening in other parts, because that is where the world is going.

The auto sector right now is investing roughly $515 billion in transforming itself into what I call auto to electric vehicles. That is something we are participating in, and we are at the table. It is important that we remain focused on that front.

When I read the opposition motion that talks about carbon capture, utilization and storage and other forces at play, I ask myself what we are doing in the economy that allows us to decarbonize, which is an element of working with stakeholders and listening, and at the same time making life more affordable for Canadians.

There are things we are doing on the housing front, such as providing 100,000 new homes and doubling housing construction, allowing Canadians to save for a home with the first-time homebuyers' investment vehicle, getting the froth out of the housing market by ending blind bidding and speculation, and banning foreign purchases.

On the affordability front, we are doing what is right for Canadians not only for today, but for the long term. I am so proud of the $10-a-day day care national child care plan modelled after la belle province that is going help residents in my riding because, frankly, it costs $1,500 to $2,000 for a family to put a child in day care in the city of Vaughan and York Region. Those are after-tax dollars, and we are going to help them.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have some important questions related to what the member said. We have heard from the Conservatives, for example, that the government is spending too much money, raising the cost of inflation. Simultaneously, the Conservatives talk about how the government spends too much. The member is talking about how the government is going to continue these subsidies. Which is it? Are Liberals going to spend too much raising the cost for Canadians there, or are they going to truly put that money back into the pockets of families that really need it?

The people in my community do not have two or three cars to be spending that money on, like the member opposite. Will they give Canadians their money back?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, and I want to be very clear, in our budget we have made very clear that all subsidies will be ending in 2023. It is there and it is very clear, so I would refer the hon. member to that part of the budget that I put forth. We will continue to support all workers across Canada. We will continue to support all families across Canada and make sure we have their backs after we exit COVID-19, and we are going to very strongly, and also as we undertake this energy transition that is going to be taking place in Canada for many years to come.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge in regard to carbon capture.

I am sure he is aware that the 14 of us from Saskatchewan have been, for years, encouraging the government to look at that and realize that in Saskatchewan we have been developing this whole program in Estevan, Saskatchewan, for a long time. There have been 4,402,000,073 tonnes of carbon capture, since this establishment was developed, going into the ground.

Can the member please explain to me, if he is concerned about sequestering and doing what is best for the environment, why his government is not taking advantage of getting that last bit of oil, which is significant, out of the ground from pumps that already exist, rather than creating more greenhouse gases by having to develop more pumps?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am completely and utterly for innovation within the oil and gas industry that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As we continue to earn revenues from this sector and as we continue to export this product to markets that need it, we are talking about energy security and the North American energy markets. They are very integrated, and we work together with our partners, but I continue to see innovation as being crucial, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions across this beautiful country we call home.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Liberals talk about the fight against global warming since 2015, but they bought a pipeline and are still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

Oil companies are currently raking in billions of dollars in profit while consumers pay over $2 a litre at the pump.

Is he not ashamed?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, 845,000 hard-working Canadians go to work every day in the energy sector in Canada. They are hard-working folks. They do what is right for their families, and they try to put some money away for the future of their kids. We need to continue to support them. The energy industry is going to be with us for many years to come, and we need to make sure, as the energy transition moves along, that we have its back.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as has been put forward by over 400 leading academics across the country, carbon capture is a false climate solution. It is a distraction from decarbonization. A recent study in the Netherlands made clear that 32 out of 40 times it is used, emissions went up. Given the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge's interest in affordability, I am wondering if he could reflect on what the $7.1 billion in the recent budget could have done, if it was put toward low-interest loans, for example, for households to action on climate.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said to the member for Kitchener, very clearly, carbon capture and storage is one tool we will utilize in working with industry and stakeholders. I would like to remind the hon. member that we put $4.4 billion in home energy retrofits and loan and grant programs that Canadians are utilizing today.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am very much looking forward to his speech. I think we will have a lot to learn from him on this vital topic.

I am very proud to rise in the House to talk about the environment, the climate emergency and the crisis that is affecting us all and will, unfortunately, continue to affect us throughout the coming years. I will also talk about the concrete solutions the NDP is putting forward in this motion.

We could talk about a lot of things. A lot of people are talking about the price of gas right now. It is hurting a lot of people in many provinces and many regions. People are finding it hard to travel or get to work because it is costing them more and more money. I would like to share some data from a graph I found recently by Gérald Fillion, a Radio-Canada economics reporter. He makes it very clear that claims about the price of gas being connected to the invasion, the war, high government taxes or the carbon market are not true.

Between June 2008 and May 2022, the price of oil went from 84.5¢ per litre to 91¢ per litre. This is not that much. The increase is slightly more dramatic in the carbon market, where the price went from 1¢ per litre to 8.8¢ per litre. The refining margin jumped from 9¢ per litre to 48¢ per litre. The biggest increase in the real cost to consumers at the pump is the refining margin, which is the oil companies' profit.

We could tax these large companies, which are making huge profits. We could put forward very simple solutions, such as those proposed by the leader of the NDP, which include temporarily suspending the GST on heating bills; increasing the GST tax credit, which would help those most in need and a good part of the middle class; and increasing the Canada child benefit, a progressive measure that would once again benefit those most in need, workers and the middle class.

Clearly, the money is there, and the economics reporter's table shows us why oil companies are seeing a dramatic increase in their ability to make profits.

During the first quarter of 2022, in three months, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil and TC Energy posted $2.95 billion, $1.17 billion and $1.1 billion in profits, respectively.

The Liberals are giving them money. They think that these companies do not have enough. They are taking consumers' and taxpayers' money, even though the government has been promising them since 2009 that it would reduce oil and fossil fuel subsidies. They have still not even begun to do so, other than a few crumbs in the last budget. The government is also behind, in terms of its pairing with Argentina to review progress in phasing out subsidies to oil companies.

What is more, the government found another present in the latest budget in the form of $2.6 billion tax credit for these companies to invest in a technology that most people doubt is even feasible. It is a pointless pursuit, a technological fantasy that distracts us from real solutions for a carbon-free society and economy. Most of the countries that have tried carbon capture have not been successful.

My colleague from Vancouver East asked a good question earlier. With the record profits that these companies are making, can someone explain why they need public money to invest in new technologies? It seems to me that they are on quite solid financial ground. If they believe that it is the right thing to do and want to help reduce greenhouse gases in Canada, it seems to me that they have deep enough pockets to make those investments.

There are two problems. First, the technology is not really reliable nor is it guaranteed. I will come back to that. Second, these companies do not need this money. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Liberals and the Conservatives are addicted to fossil fuels and unable to rid themselves of this dependency and to begin the shift and the transition that is required.

The following saying is erroneously attributed to Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Everyone believes that Albert Einstein said that, but it is not true. Someone else did. It really does not matter, because it is a good saying.

Why do we continue to double down on this economy?

Yes, it provided for communities, families and provinces for decades. No, it will not go away overnight, but it is not the economy of the future. We need to make this transition. We need to invest in training our workforce. We need to invest in green and renewable technologies that will also help create jobs, but we are not doing that. We are doing the same thing we have always done, thinking it will produce different results. That is not going to work. It has not worked for 10 years. It has not worked for 15 years, but the government still insists on giving gifts to these corporations.

Recently the Liberal government was quite proud to boast that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions had declined for the first time in 2020. What happened in 2020? It was the pandemic.

The economy was shut down. Manufacturing, transportation and foreign travel came to a halt. People were holed up in their homes, no longer using their cars or trucks. It took a global pandemic and an economic shutdown for the Liberals to be able to say that GHGs went down over the course of a year. This is nothing to be proud of. I heard the Minister of Environment and Climate Change recently, and I could not believe it. I think we need to be a little more discerning and take a much safer path, one that listens to science and is serious about our collective future, our jobs, our ecosystems and our future generations, but that is not the case here.

Despite all the rhetoric, all the promises made, and the fact that various environment ministers have attended COP24, COP25 and COP26, aid to oil companies from successive Liberal governments has been, on average, higher than the Harper government's financial aid to oil companies. They all told us, with tears in their eyes, that this is important and that they would be able to do things differently.

Unfortunately, we are going to have to continue pushing the Liberals—both in the House and outside—to finally do the right thing, because the measures currently in place will not get us where we need to go. As a reminder, Canada provides more public funding to the fossil fuel sector than any other G20 country. Between 2018 and 2020, there was 14 times more funding for oil and gas than for renewable energies. I hope my colleagues think that is unacceptable. We are not moving in the right direction, and it is important to say it.

The Liberals promised in 2009, before the G20 and the entire world, to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. What is sad and incredibly politically cynical is that several years later, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has to remind us that there is no definition for an inefficient subsidy. Moreover, it is not the Department of the Environment that determines what is efficient or inefficient, it is the Department of Finance.

For the finance department, it is not rocket science. If it makes money, it is efficient. If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, which is more of an environment and climate goal, we need a clear definition of the goal, which is to be a net-zero society by 2050. We need to take specific steps between now and then so we can see our progress and figure out which measures work and which do not.

People often talk about the cost of investing in renewable energy or training, but they never talk about the cost of doing nothing. If we do nothing, we will see more droughts, more floods, more forest fires. The climate refugee crisis will get even worse. Not long ago, it was 53°C in India and Sri Lanka. Massive parts of the planet may become uninhabitable. Those people will migrate. Naturally, they will want to survive. That could cause wars to break out. The cost will be exorbitant. The Liberal status quo will not save us.

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

Madam Speaker, carbon capture and storage is necessary. I would think that even my friends in the New Democratic Party and Green Party would acknowledge that to be a fact. Going forward, investment in technology could assist the world in being a healthier place, if technology continues to advance in that direction.

Does the NDP have a position on carbon capture and storage? Is it in favour of that kind of technology?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we would support it if it worked and if we had scientific evidence that it could be used and would help us make progress. Some 80% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the burning of oil, not the life cycle fraction of the barrel of oil when it is extracted.

In the United States, 80% of carbon capture projects have failed. There is even a Shell carbon capture operation near Edmonton that produces more greenhouse gas emissions than it captures.