Debates of May 17th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

Climate change and the environment are very important to me and my community. It guides the work that I do in this place, and that is because the threat is not theoretical. It is real. It is happening right now. Right across our country last summer we saw floods and wildfires. These events destroyed people's homes and their livelihoods. We need to take strong action as we face this reality.

Today, I will focus on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, which we have committed to do by 2023, but I would like to begin by talking about the heavy lifting that we must do and that we are doing right now to fight climate change.

One of the most impactful and earliest steps we took was to put a price on carbon pollution. It encourages businesses and individuals to make choices that result in fewer emissions.

It is a strong market mechanism, and all of the funds that are collected through the price on carbon pollution are returned to the province where it is collected. None of it stays with the federal government. I want to be clear about that because sometimes I feel like that is lost in our conversations. It is described sometimes as a tax, but that was clearly put to bed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not, and none of the funds stay here with the federal government. It is all returned to individuals and the provinces from where they were taken.

I will give some good news. We have finally begun to flatten the curve on emissions. The first year when we saw the curve beginning to flatten was 2019. There was a decoupling. The economy grew, but emissions did not grow at the same pace, and in 2020, our emissions dropped. Much of that was due to the pandemic and the fact that we reduced travel. There is no doubt about that, but part of that drop was also due to the fact that we have cleaned up our electrical grid

As part of that, we are well on our way to removing coal-fired electricity from our electrical grid, which would reduce air pollution and emissions. We are investing in nature-based solutions, such as planting two billion trees and working to protect our lands and waters. We have put into law that we must achieve net zero in our country by 2050. We released the emissions reduction plan under the law for net zero by 2050, which sets projections for all sectors of our economy to reduce emissions and includes mechanisms to reduce combustion of fossil fuels, such as moving to 100% of all new vehicle sales being zero emissions by 2050.

Today's motion focuses on the narrower issue of fossil fuel subsidies and the work we are doing toward our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. The commitment began in 2009, when Canada joined other members of the G20 in agreeing to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. The leaders' statement from that G20 said, “This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables, and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Previously, we had committed to meet the goal by 2025, and over the last year we have accelerated that timeline to be completed by 2023. So far, the government has rationalized or phased out the following nine tax measures that had provided preferential tax treatment to the fossil fuel sector: the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands, which was was announced in budget 2007 and completed in 2015; the reduction in the deduction rates for intangible capital expenses in oil sands projects to align with rates in conventional oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2011 and completed in 2016; the phase-out of the Atlantic investment tax credit for investments in the oil and gas and mining sectors, which was announced in budget 2012 and completed in 2017; the reduction in the deduction rate for preproduction intangible mine development expenses to align with rate for the oil and gas sector, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2018; the phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for mining, which was announced in budget 2013 and completed in 2021; allowing the accelerated capital cost allowance for liquefied natural gas facilities to expire as scheduled in 2025, which was announced in budget 2016; rationalize the tax treatment of expenses for successful oil and gas exploratory drilling, which was announced in budget 2017 and completed in 2021; a phase-out tax preference that allows small oil and gas companies to reclassify certain development expenses as more favourably treated exploration expenses, which was announced in 2017 and completed in 2019; and the phase-out of flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities, which was proposed in budget 2022 and will be completed in 2023.

As part of the process to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, G20 countries have been pairing among themselves for a transparent review of their work. In 2018, Canada committed to undergoing a peer review process with Argentina. We are the fourth pair of countries within the G20 to undertake that process, and it is ongoing.

The previous six countries to do a peer review have generally considered fossil fuel subsidies based on the World Trade Organization's definition of “subsidy”, which is government spending, tax or non-tax, that provides a benefit. Further, countries have tailored that definition to subsidies aimed at the fossil fuel sector by focusing on those that directly or indirectly lead to increases in the production or consumption of fossil fuels.

To complete our own work to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2018 conducted an extensive review of non-tax measures. This was complemented by a consultation that ran from March to June 2019 on the government's draft framework to review measures outside the tax system. This feedback is taken into account in the work being done by Finance Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

It is reasonable to expect that the question of what type of spending is aligned with a transition to net zero will change over time. In other words, government spending in support of the transition to a net-zero, reliable, affordable energy system could look different in 2023 from how it will look in the future. I will provide an example. Support for diesel use in northern and remote communities may need to continue in the short term to ensure the provision of essential energy services. However, in the longer term, as the government continues to invest in ways of moving these communities off diesel, these types of supports may no longer be considered aligned with government objectives once viable replacement options are put in place.

Before my time is up, I would like to address the motion's reference to carbon capture and storage. At a time when we need every tool at our disposal to reduce emissions, this is not the moment to remove support for carbon capture and storage. The IPCC has recognized that it plays a role in reducing emissions, as does the International Energy Agency. It is one part of what needs to be done to reduce our country's emissions and reach net zero.

Recently, at the environment committee, Professor Normand Mousseau shared the following testimony in response to a question from the member for Victoria.

He stated:

We absolutely have to implement all reduction measures, but we're also going to have to invest in capture and storage. I'm not talking about utilization, I mean storage. Otherwise, we won't be able to achieve net zero.

We believe it is important to focus on how programs can support climate targets, international commitments, long-term prosperity and job creation in the face of a global energy transition. It is global. This is happening all around the world. Canada is on a journey to a net-zero future, one that will be anchored by a clean, affordable and reliable energy system. It is important to ensure that government spending and investment are well aligned with that journey. That is the work that we are doing and are committed to completing.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in having my hon. colleague explain to me the fact that there was no business case for TMX. The public was told to buy it for $4.7 billion. Then it was $17.3 billion. Now there is another $10 billion on top of that in loans. That is public money to export and expand oil production. That oil production of an extra 800,000 or a million barrels a day goes offshore and does not count in Canada's emissions.

My hon. colleague said this is a global issue, and I totally agree with her. Would she not agree that it does not matter where the oil is burned, as it is still affecting the planet? If we have 2025 as a target to stop increasing production, why is the government using taxpayers' money to export oil to be burned in other jurisdictions, which will not be counted on its register?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, the way we calculate our emissions around the world, by international agreement, is by looking at what is combusted within our own countries. We are in fact, through the emissions reductions plan, putting forward strong projections for all sectors.

When we focus on oil and gas, it is not just oil and gas. In a city like Toronto, buildings are one of the largest sources of emissions. We are putting forward projections for all sectors across our economy to reduce our combustion in a very active way. That is why, when I talk about things like zero-emission vehicles, those are all part of the plan, as are retrofits for buildings. We are doing the work that we need to do, and we are providing international support for countries that need to do that work at home as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the speech from the member.

Canada is responsible for less than 3% overall of global GHGs, so I really do want a real answer to this. My constituents ask, has the government determined what impact it would have on the growth of oil and gas production in the rest of the world if we were to replace all of Canada's oil and gas production, which is the cleanest, most ethical, highest-quality production in the world, and it was shut down completely over the next 20 to 30 years?

What impact would such a shutdown of Canada's resources have on the global environmental levels and the world's ability to reach net zero, and what impact would it have on the Canadian economy and on the ability of Canada to fund Canadian innovation in green technology?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with the first part of that. I hear this argument a lot, about Canada's footprint as a global player not being that large, so what does it matter what we are doing here? It matters a lot. That is what we need to do. We need to reduce our emissions, and that is what we are doing.

Let me get to the emissions piece. The emissions piece is what we are focusing on. That is what the atmosphere sees, emissions. It is not a matter of trying to focus on production. We have said very clearly that the oil and gas cap is about emissions. We have an emissions reductions plan that is geared to reducing those emissions, and we are taking the actions in investing and also supporting Canadian innovation to get to where we need to go to do that.

That is good for our economy, because that is the economy of the future. That is the economy the world is looking for, and we are going to be competitive in it.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, if, and only if, the Liberal government has good economists, then it did a cost-benefit benefit analysis of its investments, whether in capture and storage or in the oil industry through its Crown corporations. What about the cost of inaction and the consequences of climate change, which are quantifiable and priced in real money?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are making investments where we need to for our economy, but also for the environment.

That is what we have talked about, that is what we are doing, that is what shows in our work. For example, currently a company in Windsor, here in Canada, is starting to manufacture batteries for all of North America. That is what we need. It is good for the economy and good for our environment.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, the motion by the hon. member for Victoria is not only timely and important, but very reassuring.

As I read the member's motion, I found much common ground across the aisle, including a shared recognition that energy security is ultimately about climate action. How so? The International Energy Agency, or the IEA, defines “energy security” as the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price. As the motion implies, if we want to secure an uninterrupted and stable energy supply, we have to accelerate the switch to lower-emitting energy sources, and we have to do so in ways that are affordable to Canadians. Otherwise, we risk exacerbating existing equity issues and losing some of the political will that has accumulated to drive climate action.

Therefore, we are clearly on the same page with the member opposite when she talks about the need to invest in renewable sources of energy and support both energy security and affordability. In fact, that is a central focus of the 2030 emissions reduction plan that our government released at the end of March. It is a comprehensive mix of new investments, subsidies and incentives that build on the more than $100 billion we have already committed to climate action since coming to office in 2015.

The plan also includes hard caps on emissions from every economic sector, as well as stronger environmental regulations and new sales mandates for electric vehicles, all of them aimed, ultimately, at making Canada a net-zero nation by 2050.

Put another way, our 2030 emissions reduction plan is about protecting the environment in ways that actually unlock new economic opportunities. It is about cutting pollution and creating good jobs. Where needed, it is about providing training, skills, development and other support to workers and communities, so that clean growth works for everyone in every sector of our economy and every region of our country.

Investing in renewable sources of energy is a key part of our plan. There is simply no way to reach our climate targets while ensuring our economy remains strong and globally competitive without a sustainable, low-carbon energy sector. Frankly, renewables have been part of our climate action plan since we sent our first delegation to COP 2015, which was just weeks after we formed government in 2015.

Our level of commitment to investing in renewable sources of energy has only grown from there. Just last year, we launched our $1.5-billion clean fuels fund to support the next generation of fuel production. With this new fund, we are supporting feasibility and front-end engineering and design studies, helping to establish biomass supply chains, creating new markets for waste from forestry and agriculture, and developing essential codes and standards, ensuring that new technologies can enter the market reliably. Best of all, we expect to create more than 35,000 direct and indirect jobs through this fund and leverage an additional $3.5 billion in other public and private investments over the next five years, all while helping to reduce our emissions by up to 12 megatonnes.

Budget 2022 further builds on that and is highlighted by a world-leading $15-billion Canada growth fund and an expansion and extension of the low-carbon economy fund, with a further $2.2 billion. Other measures specifically advance our capacity to produce renewable energy. Electricity is a case in point. We have committed to a net-zero electricity system by 2035, and our new federal budget includes further investments to get us there. They include $250 million over four years to support pre-development activities of clean electricity projects of national significance, such as interprovincial electricity transmission projects and small modular reactors. These projects build on what our government is already doing to advance similar work on the Atlantic loop and prairie link projects.

There are also $600 million over seven years for the smart renewables and electrification pathways program to support additional renewable electricity and grid modernization projects, $2.4 million in 2022-23 to establish a pan-Canadian grid council, which would provide external advice in support of national and regional electricity planning, and $25 million to establish regional strategic initiatives to work with provinces, territories and relevant stakeholders to develop net-zero energy plans.

As we invest in renewables, we are also helping Canadians to use less energy, such as with the Canada greener homes grant that was launched in May of last year. It offers grants of up to $5,000 to help Canadians finance resiliency and energy efficient retrofits in their homes. The program has proved to be very popular, with over 150,000 homeowners applying through the national portal and another 50,000 coming in through our co-delivery partners of Quebec and Nova Scotia.

Of course, carbon capture, use and storage also figure prominently in our emissions reduction plan and our 2022 budget. Carbon capture technologies have also been a part of Canada's plan since the turn of the century, when an international team of scientists descended on an oil field in Saskatchewan to study the feasibility of injecting carbon dioxide into a geologic formation. Almost two decades later, carbon capture has emerged from the laboratory as a commercially viable option, but the sheer scale of these projects demands continued collaboration to reduce costs, which means that we cannot afford to be excluding potential partners as we try to achieve an economy of scale with the technology. That is where I part ways with the member opposite and her motion. We need all hands on deck to fight climate change. With our abundance of natural resources and skilled labour, Canada is well positioned to lead global growth in CCUS as it supports our investments in renewables.

The oil and gas industry, which contributes 26% of Canada's overall emissions but also directly employs over 70,000 people, should not and will not be excluded. That said, it is our intention that the tax credit cannot be used for enhanced oil recovery. Simply put, the tax credit would be an effective way to further mobilize substantial private capital towards clean technologies in energy, driving down costs and encouraging widespread market adoption.

When it comes to climate change, I think colleagues will agree that there is no magic bullet. We need to use every tool in the tool box, and we need every partner we can get to help us achieve our goals. We have the ambition, the know-how and the plan to build a bright, healthy future for everyone.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just concluded by stating that we need to use every tool in our tool box to fight climate change. The previous parliamentary secretary stated that Canada's emissions are counted by all of the fossil fuels burned here in Canada. I assume that includes our imported fossil fuels, as well.

Can the hon. member explain then why the price on pollution applies to Canadian-generated natural gas and oil, and not to imports? Is it because they come into eastern Canada versus western Canada? I wonder if he can help me understand why every tool in our tool box does not include a price on carbon on imported fuels.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the price on pollution applies where the fuel is combusted, as the parliamentary secretary before me said.

I would just like to point out to the hon. member that I have been watching the Conservative leadership debates, and they are still debating whether climate change is real or not. I know there are some enlightened Conservatives out there who believe climate change is real and that we need to address this existential crisis that is facing us now and will face our children and grandchildren.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, as we are discussing today, the climate emergency is here. It is clear that the Liberal government is not doing enough to deal with the emergency of the issue that we are facing. Peguis First Nation in Manitoba has been devastated by unprecedented flooding, which is a clear sign of the climate emergency.

As my colleague said, we need to use all tools available to us. Will his government commit to immediate investment in long-term mitigation infrastructure in Peguis, first nations and northern communities that are currently paying the price for the climate emergency? We have put a bill forward on this front, with respect to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We need all levers of government to support communities in fighting climate change now. Will the government commit to supporting Peguis?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are feeling the impacts of climate change up close and personal in Manitoba. My heart goes out to the good people of Peguis and other first nations communities that have been evacuated.

We have experienced two “once-in-300-year” floods in the past decade: in 2011 and 2014. As the hon. member will know, many people were evacuated from their homes. Many of them were first nations. That is why, yesterday, the minister introduced a national adaptation strategy that will help us to build resiliency for our communities. It is why we have spent $100 billion, and an additional $9.1 billion for the emissions reduction plan. We not only have to address adaptation, but we have to address the mitigation issue: that is causing these flooding issues the hon. member has brought to our attention.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am so fed up with the Liberals' hypocrisy on fighting climate change. I have been listening to them for two to three years in this place. They keep using the words “green transition” and “sustainable development”.

At least my Conservative friends do not lie. They are not interested in fighting climate change. They just ignore it. At least they do not pretend.

The Liberals could not care less either, but they pretend to be interested. Let us look at their spending. That would be $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, $12.6 billion to expand Trans Mountain, $2.7 billion for an accelerated investment incentive, and $750 million for the new fund. Those are the subsidies the Liberals have been handing out to the fossil fuel industry for a few years now. We have never managed to reach the target.

Canada is one of the worst performers in the world when it comes to climate targets. That is scandalous. I condemn my Liberal friends' hypocrisy.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, the Bloc thinks this government is doing absolutely nothing. We have invested $100 billion in climate action. We flattened the curve. The hon. member from Timmins mentioned his view was that the emissions reduction plan was a scam. The World Wildlife Fund, David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver from the Green Party have all praised our plan. They are a little more objective than the member opposite.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to resuming debate, I did not want to interrupt during questions and comments because it takes time away, but I want to remind members they should not be thinking out loud. I would ask them to hold on to their thoughts until they are recognized during questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion.

I should just mention I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I think today it is important for us to be clear about what is being debated. The NDP has a motion that references the high cost of gasoline, but it does not suggest what could be done. They are actually suggesting that we should see the prices increase.

I think it is good, and I think it is important, for the NDP to be transparent about its position. I think New Democrats have been abundantly clear as to what they want to have happen. They have said that they believe the oil and gas sector in the country of Canada should be shut down. They have been very clear. There is no ambiguity. They have said that the 500,000 jobs should be done away with, and they have an idea as to how they can get them employed in coffee shops or maybe art studios, but they want to see those jobs eliminated. They want to see the energy sector shut down.

They also want to see the price of gasoline driven up even further. They have been abundantly clear in that regard, but I think this is a bad strategy. I think this is a path to destruction and hardship for the vast majority of Canadians. The folks I am hearing from in my constituency are desperately concerned about the high cost of living and, over the past number of months, the devastating impact of high fuel prices on household budgets.

I live in a rural community. My constituency is a rural and northern community, so many of the folks who are employed in my constituency live in rural communities or they work in rural communities. They drive pickup trucks to get to work. Those are essential vehicles. They cannot take the subway, Uber or a Prius. They have to get into their pickups and they have to get to work, and many of these people are paying up to a day's wages to fill the tank of an essential vehicle to get to their jobs.

The NDP and the Liberals have worked together over the past number of months not only to maintain these high prices, but to elevate the price through their additional carbon taxes. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that taxation on gasoline amounts to about 50¢ a litre. Many politicians have talked about how bad it is that there is a high cost for gasoline. It is amazing. There is something we, as politicians, could actually do. As a matter of fact, the Province of Alberta, for a temporary period of time, did something. Its government eliminated some of the gas taxes, which brought relief to households in the province of Alberta. I believe the federal government should take a lesson from that, do what is the right thing to do and make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast.

Not only does the NDP want to see the price of gasoline go up, as I mentioned, but it wants to eliminate the industry altogether. Let us just think about that for a period of time. If we eliminate the sector in the country of Canada, a number of things would happen. Canadians would continue to need to use oil and gas, so we would import it. From where would we import it? We would import it from the same places every country does that does not import Canadian oil and gas. This means countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

I can tell members, Canadians and you, Madam Speaker, this, and I am hopeful my colleagues in the NDP and the Liberal Party are listening.

I know that Canadians do not want to see oil and gas flowing into Canada from places like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, which have far lower human rights records and environmental stewardship records. I can tell members that, while the NDP may want to shut down the industry here in Canada, we have seen what happens when other countries attempt this. It means they become dependent on other countries and places for their fuel needs, and they become less able to diversify their own economies.

The price of fuel is at an all-time high, and the NDP is suggesting that the solution should be that we shut down the industry. New Democrats say we should shut down the subsidies.

As has been articulated by the government, and as has been articulated by the industry, these are actually not the subsidies the NDP would suggest. There are subsidies that take place within Canada relating to the oil and gas sector, and those are the significant subsidies the industry makes to the Canadian population. The taxes collected from the industry to the government in Canada amount to nearly $20 billion.

The NDP solution to the challenges that we face today is to shut down the industry, continue to see prices of gasoline rise and shut down the $20 billion in revenue that the industry pays into municipal, provincial and federal coffers. That $20 billion pays for roads, maintenance of our communities, health care systems, schools and universities, as well as the important services that the federal government provides. The NDP's suggestion is that, if we just eliminate this industry, all would be harmonious and we would happily continue on our merry way. The NDP gives no regard to the $20 billion that is invested from the industry every single year.

More importantly, the NDP talks about shutting down the industry, and it never talks about the important jobs that the industry creates, whether it is the 500,000 jobs the industry creates directly or the indirect jobs that are created in every community across this country. In the old days, the NDP used to be the defender of the blue-collar worker. It used to be the defender of rural communities. It used to be the defender of the little guy. The vast majority of the people who work in the energy sector in the province of Alberta and throughout the country are exactly the people who the NDP used to represent. Unfortunately, the NDP have now completely abandoned those folks.

In a community like mine, where we have a very diversified economy, with oil and gas, agriculture, forestry, a good service sector and a good retail sector, everybody in close proximity understands that their well-being is connected to everybody else's well-being. The retailer knows that if we shut down the energy sector, their energy costs would skyrocket, which they are of course opposed to, but they also understand the importance of their success being connected to the jobs that are created within in our community and the spinoff benefits within our community.

The thing the NDP conveniently likes to forget, when they talk about the environment and the need to transition from oil and gas to new energies, is that it would be following the path Kathleen Wynne's government took here in the province of Ontario. It spent billions of dollars—

[An hon. member]

Now, that is a dirty personal attack.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from the NDP—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, order. I would like to remind members that it is not time for questions and comments. The hon. member has one minute and—

[An hon. member]

Do not ever call me Kathleen Wynne.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay will come to order. There is one minute and six seconds left. The NDP has the first question on this, and I am sure he will be able to get up to ask questions and make comments.

[An hon. member]

Madam Speaker, I am just hurt.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie has the floor.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I never would have accused the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay of having been a Liberal until recently, when he made that dirty deal with the Prime Minister to continue to drive up gasoline prices and follow the path of Kathleen Wynne, who was trying to shut down the oil and gas and resource sectors, while investing billions of dollars in these concepts of green energy that never came to fruition. The money was wasted in Ontario. The taxes went up to pay for those wasted experiments, and Ontarians still have to rely on traditional energy sources.

However, that is exactly what the NDP suggests. As a matter of fact, not only is the oil and gas sector an important investor in our communities, our governments and all the rest of it, but it is also one of the largest investors in clean tech in the country. The unique difference between the oil and gas sector and government investment in clean tech is that the oil and gas sector invests in clean tech that actually results in something beneficial for our communities, whereas there is waste in the government spending on these fronts.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great amusement. I have great respect for him. It was getting kind of out there, but that is okay. He has a job to do.

I would like to ask him about some work we did together while he was committee chair trying to get accountability on the Kielburger brothers because this issue has been brought back up in the public media. I am very concerned about the fact that, in 10 months of trying to get the basic financial information of how many corporations there are, who had the finances and who owned what, we could not get a single clear picture. This was a parliamentary committee and what was obstructing us the whole time was their chief financial officer, Victor Li. We kept being told that he was off sick some place, but they had nobody else to replace them.

The hon. member was the chair of that committee, and this was the frustration he faced. This is a children's charity. Children's charities should have pretty clear books. Why were we not able to get basic answers from their chief financial officer, Victor Li, and the rest of that group?