Debates of May 17th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty rich to hear the Liberals defending the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Not one of its projects has seen completion. It is sitting on $35 billion and has been around for over five years now. There is not much to point to, except for projects that it is interested in or is approving.

As I expect my colleague to know, the reality is that first nations and northern communities have been consistently left out from many pockets of infrastructure funding, including at the Infrastructure Bank, and they are paying the highest cost of climate change. We can look at Peguis First Nation. It knows what it needs and it has been clear with the federal government, but the federal government is nowhere to be seen when it comes to long-term mitigation efforts. This is not acceptable.

The Infrastructure Bank ought to be part of the solution, and the federal government needs to step up with some sense of urgency to support Peguis and first nations and northern communities that are already paying the price of climate change.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member. We are hearing the NDP speak out of both sides of its mouth. The member, maybe in a moment of honesty, said she is concerned about high gas prices. This morning, I asked the member for Timmins—James Bay about gas after he said we cannot have affordable gas prices, and he got up and he said that was wrong—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member for a point of order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask the member to show some dignity and not lie in the House. I did not say—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We do not use such words in the House of Commons. The hon. member is asking a question and referring to an earlier question in the debate.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, this is what qualifies as not being honest in the House, apparently. One moment the member says that we cannot have affordable, cheap gasoline, and when he is called on it, he says that he did not say that. In fact, it is exactly what the NDP is saying.

What is the NDP's position? Does the NDP want high gasoline prices, which means Canadians are going to pay, or does it want gasoline prices to come down so that Canadians get a break and we have affordable prices?

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

Madam Speaker, I would welcome the Conservative member to take a closer look at our opposition day motion and what we are proposing. I invite him to support our motion, which is standing up for Canadians in the face of the affordability crisis and climate crisis they are facing.

I am not surprised, and am highly unimpressed, by the theatre we are seeing from the Conservative Party, a party that consistently refuses to accept the reality of climate change. It is 2022. It is here. It is ravaging our communities, including communities that Conservatives represent. It is time to get on board and support solutions in the face of climate change that are focused on saving lives. I invite them to join us right now to get to work.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

I really enjoyed the message she conveyed, but some of the technical details do not add up.

My colleague talked about the fact that the government is a good friend to the oil companies. She also talked about all the nice words and the fact that action is needed. It is such a shame, but I am going to have to tell her about her friends in the government and advise her that she is now part of the nice words club.

We are going to see lots of great clips on the NDP members' social media about their amazing motion. We support the motion because it reflects our values. However, in a few days, they are going to vote in favour of a budget that gives billions of dollars to the oil industry and that approves the Bay du Nord development project. What is more, the budget will invest $2.4 billion in GHG capture projects that do not even work.

I would like her to explain why she supports the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, today's motion clearly demonstrates the NDP's position.

We hope that the Bloc Québécois will support us. It is clear that the Liberals' actions are not only disappointing, but also part of the problem. That is for sure. Canadians expect more than just nice words; they want real action on climate change.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague from Beaches—East York.

I would like to thank our hon. colleague from Victoria for this opportunity to discuss Canada's climate plan. It is a plan that, as Canadians, we should be very proud of.

I will say at the outset that we as Liberals share the member's objective: a clean and just energy transition that does everything possible to shield our planet from the climate change threat. However, her motion's wording illustrates where we differ, and I will be speaking about that today.

As the member opposite knows, our government is committed to achieving a 40% to 45% emissions reduction by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. We have also promised to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. This is our first area of disagreement, because we do not consider inefficient subsidies to be any of the measures we are using to cut emissions.

This brings me to our second difference of opinion. Unlike her party, the NDP, we support the development of carbon capture, use and storage technology. This technology involves the removal or capture of carbon from industrial processes or even directly from our atmosphere in order to make our planet livable.

However, first, I will put my comments in proper context, because carbon capture is just one tool among many in our climate plan's broad tool box to cut emissions across Canada's economy.

Our plan starts with putting a price on pollution. It also includes using regulatory investment and tax measures to incent the transition to cleaner options, like electric vehicles. The bottom line is that we are looking at all options, because despite wishful thinking in some quarters, there is no single, magical solution that will appear to resolve this existential challenge. Even clean energy sources such as wind and solar, while crucial, are not enough to get us to net zero. That is why we are encouraging all tools, including carbon capture technologies, which will be especially important for major pollution sources like the oil sands or chemical industries.

Carbon capture technologies have been developing through most of the century, but they remain expensive and are only used on a relatively small scale. I will cite some promising examples in Canada shortly. However, first I want to make the point that our government is far from alone in supporting this innovation.

Let us consider the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the one that came with a stark warning from the UN Secretary-General that without urgent action now, the planet is on a “fast track to...disaster”. The IPCC made clear that carbon capture technology is particularly important, and not just to get the planet closer to net zero. It also noted that even if the world reaches our net-zero 2050 objective, direct removal from the atmosphere may be needed to limit global warming.

I will cite a comment from The Guardian newspaper by Robert Gross, director of the United Kingdom's Energy Research Centre. He said, “We will need not just net zero but to start to remove CO2 from the air. We cannot do one instead of the other, but we have reached the point where it is likely that humanity will need to do both to avoid dangerous climate change.” This illustrates how important it is for us to invest in carbon capture technology.

The IPPC's position is echoed by other respected organizations. Just consider the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Its net-zero road map would require carbon capture to account for roughly 15% of global emission reductions.

Another respected global voice on climate is the International Renewable Energy Agency. It has stated that even a very aggressive ramping up of renewables will not be sufficient. That is why it considers carbon capture essential.

Finally, I will point out the Canadian Climate Institute. It also views carbon capture and removal as playing a potentially significant role in our net-zero pathway.

This is why carbon capture is a part of our recently published 2030 emissions reduction plan. It is a blueprint that outlines the technology's economy-wide applications in its sector-by-sector path for Canada to reach our targets. The fact is, we believe that carbon capture can help tackle emissions from the toughest-to-abate but crucial sectors of Canada's economy, such as oil and gas and heavy industry. More importantly, it also opens the door to low-carbon pathways, such as hydrogen, green concrete and low-emissions power.

Carbon capture also presents a multi-billion dollar market opportunity. In hydrogen alone, I note that Germany's ambassador recently described Canada as a potential hydrogen superpower. Carbon capture will play a key role in helping us produce clean hydrogen.

As I indicated earlier, this is not just about potential. Canada has long been an innovation leader. In fact, Canada is already home to leading carbon capture companies, five of which made the 2022 Global Cleantech 100 list of innovative global clean-tech firms.

We have to push harder, and that is why Canada is implementing measures that will help drive the carbon capture market here even further. Budget 2021, for instance, included $319 million to support research, development and demonstrations of carbon capture, use and storage technologies. Budget 2022 includes a proposed new investment tax credit for companies that invest in these projects. The credit is a key part of our government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization. This plan was designed after consultations with the public, stakeholders and the provinces and territories. It is intended to drive the growth of Canadian carbon capture, use and storage technologies in industries from steel and plastics to fuels and hydrogen.

In addition, our government has been engaging with key partners and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive carbon capture strategy for Canada. We plan to release this strategy in the coming months.

I indicated earlier that I would cite some real-world examples, and in doing so I will note that our government has worked arm in arm with the Alberta government and the private sector to make inroads in this area.

One is the Alberta carbon trunk line capture and storage project, the world's largest of its kind. The Government of Canada is supporting the project with $30 million through the clean energy fund, as well as $33 million from the ecoENERGY technology initiative.

Another success story is Shell Canada's Quest project. Since 2015, this project, which received early funding from Natural Resources Canada, has been reducing emissions at Shell's Scotford upgrader by 1.1 megatonnes per year. Quest remains one of the most successful carbon capture projects in the world.

I would also draw members' attention to our $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund. It contributed $25 million to support Svante, a B.C. company developing carbon capture technology for industrial applications like cement and blue hydrogen.

Canada's petroleum industry is one of the most innovative in the world. It found a way to extract oil from sand in northern Alberta and to tap wealth under the ocean floor in the treacherous North Atlantic. I believe carbon capture holds similar potential for world-class innovation, allowing Canada's economy to thrive by helping us deliver cleaner energy while driving toward our net-zero target.

That is why I believe we need to continue to work on developing carbon capture, use and storage technologies in Canada, and it is why I am proud of the plan the government has to support this important innovation to get us to the net-zero 2050 plan.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a great speech. I am really glad that my colleague on the other side of the House gave a speech that talked about the importance of carbon capture, utilization and storage in our economy, and how important a part of the budget it is. However, I will remind him that it goes nowhere as far as making Canada competitive with carbon capture regimes around the world, including the United States and Norway, with whom we compete.

Why are we not competitive with those two very important environmental jurisdictions? Also, why is this carbon capture credit not in the budget implementation bill? That is what we are debating in the House. If it is so important, why are we not advancing this more quickly and in a more competitive way than we are currently?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work he does on our natural resources committee. He is a huge advocate for the oil and gas sector and has made many great contributions to our discussions about the transition we are making to green and clean technologies and a net-zero economy.

To his question, through the investments we are making, we are trying to advance Canada's innovation so that we can be a leader on the global front. We want to be the most competitive and most innovative so that we can sell these technologies to help solve a global crisis. It is through the investments we are making, and that I hope we will continue to make, that we will be able to make the achievements and inroads that are needed.

As far as funding goes, I will be advocating for it, as I think members across the House will be, to make sure the government delivers on the commitments we are making so that we have the investments to fuel the innovations we really need.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I have some reservations. I do not think it is right to use science only when it serves one's purposes.

A group of 400 academics wrote that carbon capture is not a good idea for the oil and gas sector. A number of experts told us in committee that carbon capture could meet the needs of cement factories or heavy industrial processes, but it is a pipe dream for the oil and gas sector.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with these 400 experts that carbon capture should apply only to very specific sectors but not the oil and gas sector.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the aisle for his work on the natural resources committee. He is a huge advocate for the many files that we are working on at that committee.

To his point, we need to look at the science and the evidence and to listen to the experts out there, but we also need to continue to push on innovation. It is something that Canada has demonstrated: that we have the know-how to solve world-class problems. Although there may be challenges right now with the technology on the kind of mass commercial scale we need in the oil and gas sector for carbon capture, I do not think we need to give up and throw our hands in the air and say it cannot be done.

This is where government support for that continued innovation can happen. There are other experts who say that we can get there. It is going to take time and investments and collaboration across industries, and perhaps even countries, to land where we need to be. This is the sort of support we need and direction that our government is headed in.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I appreciate the spirit of the motion and, for the most part, I also agree with it in substance. There is one particular point of contention that I will get to, but first I will start with where I agree.

The motion notes that oil and gas companies are making record profits at the same time as Canadians are paying more than ever for gas at the pumps. We have seen Suncor's profits more than triple in a year. Canadian Natural Resources more than doubled its year-over-year first-quarter numbers, and Imperial Oil saw its best first quarter in 30 years. It goes on and on. The shortage of global crude oil, driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has led to significant new profit for these companies.

In answer, the motion highlights the need to speed up our transition to clean energy and also to help Canadians struggling with the high cost of living. It seems reasonable enough, and there are many specific ways to accomplish these general goals. We could see additional financial support for clean energy infrastructure and additional support for skills training for the jobs we will increasingly rely upon. There are many ways to support Canadians in need, and I would highlight the need to deliver on the Canada disability benefit as one example. To pay for some of this, including skills training and clean energy infrastructure, I would have supported a call for a windfall tax on oil and gas profits.

As the environment minister has rightly said recently, for example, these companies are making record profits and they should be investing some of them into ensuring that they have a future. Instead, the motion calls for the government to stop using Canadian taxpayers' money to subsidize and finance the oil and gas sector and to reinvest that money in the transition and in supporting struggling Canadians. Again, in general this is certainly worthy of support.

The motion rightly calls out the public financing provided through Crown corporations such as Export Development Canada. Let us pause for a moment to delve into the work of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. It has acknowledged that federal financing via subsidies amounts to about $2 billion a year, but there is a very large sum that is contributed via public financing. In a recent scorecard ranking G20 levels of support provided to fossil fuels, Canada ranked last among OECD countries by providing the highest amount of support. The IISD estimate is that Canada provides an average of $13.2 billion in support for oil and gas every year via EDC, representing over 12% of the financing committed by that institution. About 30% of that financing goes toward domestic operations of Canadian oil and gas companies. That obviously needs to change.

EDC, in its Canada account, has financed the government's acquisition and construction of TMX, which should also change and, frankly, should not have happened the way it has. It is impossible to see how TMX is economically feasible at this point, with the total project cost ballooning to well over $20 billion. Even back in December 2020, the PBO briefed parliamentarians and noted that the Trans Mountain expansion would not be profitable if we took additional climate action. Subsequently, there has been a lot of additional climate action, including much greater stringency around our carbon pricing. There is no clear explanation as to how the project is a worthwhile financial investment in a world that reduces emissions consistent with net-zero. It is past time we put a stop to public financing and, unfortunately, recently again, we have seen an additional $10-billion loan that is an effective subsidy in the form of protection against credit risk. If Canada expended the same sum toward renewable energy that we have and will expend on TMX, we would all be better off, including workers who will inevitably be affected by the global transition.

Despite my frustration with public financing, including of TMX, it is impossible to ignore the progress we have made since 2015. When this government took office in 2015, projected 2030 emissions were 815 megatons. Fast forward to the first-ever emissions-reduction plan and, if all of the policies hold and if a future government does not roll them back, those projected 2030 emissions have moved from 815 megatons to 443 megatons. There is still more work to be done, including phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and addressing public financing.

In our most recent platform, and in the mandate letters of the ministers, Canadians will see that we have committed to accelerate our G20 commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies from 2025 to 2023, and we have also committed to develop a plan to phase out public financing. It is not soon enough, but important nonetheless, to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations, consistent with our commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. We have also committed to a more stringent cap that I would say we take more seriously on oil and gas sector emissions.

Where I part ways with the motion's sponsor is with respect to carbon capture utilization and storage. The motion casts the CCUS investment tax credit as a problematic fossil fuel subsidy by calling for the government to exclude oil and gas companies from the $2.6-billion budget allocation: a budget allocation that is over five years. The CCUS investment tax credit is not universally supported. There are some legitimate criticisms to consider and take seriously.

At the same time, there are many thoughtful experts who support encouraging investment in this space. The Canadian version of the policy has rightly excluded enhanced oil recovery, such that eligible projects cannot be used to squeeze more oil out of the ground. According to the Grantham Institute, CCUS could be an essential technology for tackling climate change. The recent IPCC report includes a specific section on the emerging technology. The committee on climate change in the U.K., a model for our net-zero advisory body in a serious way, has called it “a vital technology essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the economy”.

Carbon capture may not be a cure-all for the global climate challenge, but it has a major role to play in decarbonizing heavy industry. In Canada, where industrial emissions make up over a third of total emissions, it can play an even greater role than in other countries.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of a research associate at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

The International Energy Agency, in its net-zero report of last year, notes that CCUS can facilitate the transition to net-zero C02 emissions:

by tackling emissions from existing assets, providing a way to address emissions from some of the most challenging sectors; providing a cost-effective pathway to scale up low-carbon hydrogen production rapidly; and allowing for CO₂ removal from the atmosphere...

This is again from the report:

Government R and D spending needs to be increased and reprioritized. Critical areas such as electrification, hydrogen, bioenergy and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) today receive only around one‐third of the level of public R and D funding of the more established low‐carbon electricity generation and energy efficiency technologies.

In that same report, in its 1.5° scenario, the IEA estimates that the world will still use about 25 million barrels per day, or a quarter of current usage. However, these are not for combustion purposes, but for non-combustion applications such as petrochemicals, lubricants, solvents, waxes, etc. The IEA forecasted the demand for natural gas in 2050 would be half of what it is today, again for non-combustion.

Yes, unquestionably, we need to reduce fossil fuel use. Unquestionably, we need to remove public financing from the fossil fuel sector, especially as it relates to combustion, but we also need to ensure that the extraction and production of oil and gas, to the extent that it is going to continue, is net-zero. It will continue even up to 2050.

I want to dismiss objections here. Many experts, led by Canada research chair and University of Victoria professor Christina Hoicka, said:

Deploying CCUS at any climate-relevant scale, carried out within the short time frame we have to avert climate catastrophe without posing substantial risks to communities on the front lines of the buildout, is a pipe dream...

Perhaps they will be proven right. It may be that the technology ultimately fails, and that the $2.6 billion in public financing over the next five years goes with it. My own view is that we need to take every moon shot that we can, given the scale of the crisis. We are doing so much, and this is another arrow in our quiver.

While the policy is designed for clues, and enhanced oil recovery ensures that companies invest a significant amount of their own capital and will require anyone who claims the policy to complete a climate-related financial disclosure report, I can also appreciate the frustration when federal funds are encouraging investment from companies that are currently flush with cash, even if the investment is for a worthwhile end. For me, the objection that lands most seriously is that a CCUS-specific tax credit pushes companies to invest in that particular technology over others that may well be more deserving of support and it may distort investment decisions away from other decisions that make more sense, whether company-specific, sector-specific or economy-wide.

I think there are challenges we want to take seriously, but when it comes to federal support for tackling climate change, we have the carbon pricing regime, our effort to phase out coal-fired electricity, our efforts to reduce methane emissions, including increasingly stringent policies to do so and, finally, our effort in the most recent platform and in mandate letters to cap oil and gas sector emissions. We have our investments: historic investments in public transit, and on and on. There is so much that we are doing and so much more, of course, that we need to do, but emphasizing and battling around the CCUS is, I think, misplaced. Absolutely, we should address public financing. We should do some more seriously and criticism is warranted there, but let us not fight about the CCUS investment tax credit, which is encouraging investment in a space that sorely needs that investment.

To close, I would just say that if the motion were amended to remove that specific element, it would be worthy of my support.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I guess I question some of the assertions he is making, given the $20 billion his government has put into building the TMX pipeline because there was no case for it in the private sector. This is to export oil, which will not be counted as part of Canada's net-zero emissions.

The Canadian Energy Regulator estimates that the amount of oil being taken out of the ground and exported in Canada in 2050 will be equivalent to what it was in 2019. I do not see how the Liberals can talk about an emissions cap when they are actually talking about an increase in production of $1.2 million barrels a day, from a sector whose oil sands are considered to have the highest carbon footprint on the planet.

How does he justify TMX, exports and the fact that the Liberals are looking to have more than a million barrels a day coming out of the ground, right up to 2050?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to justify federal investment in TMX. I am not going to justify EDC's role in financing TMX and other fossil fuel infrastructure.

What I will emphasize, though, is the importance of the overall emissions reduction plan and the serious climate action that we have seen over the last six and a half years. This is such critical action that climate experts overwhelmingly endorsed the Liberal plan in the last election. As an example, Andrew Weaver, the former B.C. Green Party leader and climate scientist, called the recent emissions reduction plan tabled just last month, an “outstanding plan”, saying “Canada [has reclaimed] international leadership on climate file.”

There are reasons for criticism, but overwhelmingly, I think there are reasons for optimism.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the conversation around carbon capture and underground storage. As the member may know, in Estevan, Saskatchewan, this whole process, the very first in the world, was developed, and it was done with coal, which is the hardest to function with. Since its opening, 4,402,000,073 tonnes of carbon dioxide have been stored underground just from that one location. Now the knowledge is there and the innovation has been done, so to go forward and do this in other areas of resources will cost far less.

I just do not understand. I would ask the member to clarify for me why, in light of the facts that the reality is the world will still need oil for the next, as they say, 20, 30 or 40 years, and the best product, the most ethical and clean, is in Canada, why would we not want to draw what still exists from oil wells, rather than increase carbon emissions by creating more wells and get more oil from other sources than what is already there?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that there will be a role for oil and gas. I noted that by 2050, that role will be for non-combustion purposes principally. Certainly we are going to see a steady decline over the coming decades in the production and use of oil and gas, especially for combustion purposes.

I suppose my answer is simply to say that I do not have the same challenges with our country as a producer as I would with a regime like Russia, for example. We are rightly prohibiting Russian oil and gas for good reason, but we also need to transition very quickly. We need to support that transition and make sure that we support our workers and our society in a future that is ultimately going to be net zero by 2050.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I picked up on some serious contradictions.

He concluded his speech with the assertion that we should not challenge the $2.4 billion set aside for carbon capture. However, during his speech, he said that, from a technical perspective, carbon capture may not be feasible, as many experts have said, but that we need to roll the dice anyway. I have not seen a whole lot of $2.4 billion die rolls in my time.

Does my colleague agree that it would be much more responsible to invest that money in clean energy, such as green hydrogen, wind energy and hydroelectricity, which are all low-carbon power sources that have proven their worth?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the best argument is around opportunity costs and saying we should invest this money elsewhere, but my point is that there are many experts who do support CCUS technology, and when we look at the scale of the challenge, we should be examining and embracing every single opportunity to address climate change and reduce emissions. CCUS is one such option. We should not ignore it, and we definitely should not undermine it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I would like to start by thanking the member for Victoria for bringing forward this motion and the member for Timmins—James Bay for the incredible work he has done on fossil fuel subsidies.

Canadians spend more tax dollars propping up the fossil fuel industry than any other country in the developed world, with an average of around $14 billion per year in subsidies before the massive COVID-19 orphan well bailout. The question is why. What do we as Canadian taxpayers get for all of this money? Where does this money go?

From 2014-21, corporate profits in the oil and gas sector in Canada rose steadily, seeing an all-time high of $445 billion in 2021. Public subsidies were a significant factor in those record high profits, adding nearly $100 billion over this time to these multinational corporations' bottom lines.

In March 2022, Topaz Energy announced an 8% increase to its quarterly dividend, the company's third such increase since launching its dividend program in 2020. In October 2021, Suncor doubled its quarterly dividend for shareholders, and just last week the oil sands company announced a more than threefold increase in profits in the first three months of this year.

While this is great news for the Americans, the Chinese and other shareholders who own these companies, it is not good news for Albertans. It is not good news for Canadians. While Canadian taxpayers are underwriting these corporation dividends to shareholders, they are laying off workers. During this same period of time, while these massive multinational corporations were soaking up Canadian taxpayers' largesse, the fossil fuel sector was laying off 53,000 Canadian workers. That is 53,000 families, most of them in Alberta, who are facing the worst of times, while their former employers are relishing in the best of times.

What are Canadians getting for this unprecedented public investment? Surely we are at least getting some environmental protection, or some environmental mitigation from emission reductions. The answer is no.

In 2020, the government provided $1.7 billion to the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia to fund the cleanup of inactive oil and gas wells as part of the COVID-19 economic response. The member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay and I wrote to the minister at the time and begged him to attach strings to that money so we would know that it would go to workers, and that it would not just go to corporations that would then not clean up their wells. Can members guess what happened? The money went to the corporations, and the wells have not been cleaned up. In short, this $1.7 billion handout to the oil and gas industry did nothing to create jobs or mitigate pollution. It merely allowed these companies to replace the costs they were obligated to cover with government money.

At the same time that these companies were reaping billions in subsidies, recording record high profits and asking for public dollars to underwrite their own obligations to reduce emissions, they are refusing to pay their local and municipal taxes. In Alberta, rural municipalities are now facing $253 million in unpaid taxes owed by delinquent oil and gas companies. These taxes pay for the roads and the water systems that the companies are relying upon. These taxes support the communities who own the resources, yet the companies are pocketing the profits, walking away from their local tax obligations, just like they walked away from their emissions obligations and their orphan well obligations.

It does not have to be this way. We know what we get with billions in fossil fuel subsidies. We get layoffs. We get devastated communities. We get pollution, and we get climate change. We get to prop up a sunsetting industry whose days are numbered, whether we as taxpayers like it or not, and oil and gas companies get massive profits.

Why would we continue this cycle? There are much better things we could be spending these public dollars on. In Alberta, we have lived through the boom and bust cycles of an economy that is chained to the fossil fuel industry. We need to break this chain. We need to make sure that Albertans, the people in my province, have a future. We need to diversify the economy before it is too late.

For Alberta, the climate crisis is an existential crisis, just like it is for the rest of Canada and the rest of the world. We see an increase in devastation from wildfires, and an increase in droughts and floods. We feel the impacts on our agriculture and forestry sectors. However, for Alberta, it is different.

A transition from fossil fuels is also a matter of economic survival. Instead of $100 billion in public dollars padding fossil fuel's bottom line, and instead of throwing this money at foreign investors, the government should be investing in Alberta, and elsewhere in Canada, to help workers and to create jobs of the future.

More than 50,000 Canadian oil and gas workers have lost their jobs to automation over the past decade, and experts expect layoffs to continue. Why are we not investing to help these workers and apply their skills to other sectors? Why are we not investing to create the jobs they need now, and that their children will need in the future?

Today, approximately 140,000 Albertans work directly in the sector, and hundreds of thousands more rely on jobs from it, but we know that subsidizing the industry is not going to save those jobs. We have decades upon decades of experience demonstrating that. How much longer are we going to keep doing this?

Alberta is uniquely positioned to be a global leader in renewable energy. My province has abundant solar, wind and geothermal resources, and it would have abundant jobs in these areas, if only there were substantial investments in the means necessary, and if only we were not pouring those billions of dollars into subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

However, there are also opportunities outside of energy, opportunities that develop sectors of our economy based on strategic advantage, such as biomedical research, engineering or artificial intelligence, just to name a few, but these require investment. These opportunities require investment from the federal government. The government should be leading the way when it comes to diversifying Alberta's economy.

Canada has benefited for decades from the oil and gas development in Alberta. I am proud of that. I am proud that Alberta helped build this country. Now, it would be to every Canadian's advantage to help Alberta out of its reliance on oil and gas, and the government has the means to do this. It just needs the will.

I have said this before in the House, but I will finish by saying that I come from an oil and gas family. My grandfather worked in oil and gas. My father was a trucker in the oil and gas sector. My brother washes trucks in the oil and gas sector, and my husband works in the pipeline sector. Members would be hard pressed to find anyone in Alberta who does not have a link to the oil and gas sector. It is our history, and it is a history I am proud of.

I am proud of being Albertan, and I want to make it very clear that Albertans know climate change is real, and we know our future cannot depend on fossil fuels. We do not love our children any less, and we do not want any less for our communities, but unlike other provinces, and unlike folks in other areas of this country, Albertans have so much more to lose if we do not get this right. It is our families and our livelihoods we will lose, if we do not get the just transition right.

We know we cannot depend on the fossil fuel sector. We simply cannot continue along this path of losing jobs, polluting our province and destroying our planet any longer. Whether we want to or not, we know we must change, but we need the government to reverse course, live up to its climate commitments and invest in diversifying our economy before it is too late.

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

Madam Speaker, in many ways, this government has, in fact, been very progressive on its measures dealing with the whole idea of a green transition. It is something that is not new. We have literally invested over the last six years hundreds of millions of dollars, going into multiple billions of dollars, into a green transition. We have been recognized by the former leader of the Green Party in the province of British Columbia for the efforts that we have presented to Canadians.

My question, specifically, is in regard to the issue of carbon capture. What is the official NDP position on the technology and advancing the technology on carbon capture?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I were a worker in Alberta, I would have zero trust that the government has any interest in supporting me, because it has not shown any interest in supporting Alberta workers. I mentioned in my speech that we asked the government to tie a string so that workers were supported, not big business, and it refused to do it.

In terms of carbon capture, here is my question for the member. Why would taxpayers need to subsidize carbon capture? Why can industry not pay for the carbon capture that it is so proud of and would like to see happen? It should be responsible for funding it.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have some questions about the member's figures, but I am going to get to something that I think is more important.

We are talking about 53,000 families in Alberta that were suffering during the oil and gas downturn. It is no longer in a downturn, I will point out. The Court of Appeal of Alberta came out last week and indicated very clearly that Bill C-69 was ultra vires of the federal government. That being the case, the NDP leader in Alberta indicated that the main cause of the layoffs in Alberta was a punitive regulatory regime as a result of Bill C-69.

Would the member agree with her party leader in Alberta that it is the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision on Bill C-69 that led to those 53,000 families being laid off in Alberta?