Bill C-69 (Historical)

An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act
(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;
(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;
(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;
(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;
(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;
(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;
(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;
(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;
(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;
(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;
(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and
(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,
(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;
(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;
(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;
(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;
(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;
(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;
(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and
(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.
Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;
(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water if the work may interfere with navigation;
(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;
(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;
(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;
(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;
(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, have been waiting for this opportunity to speak and to discuss some of the significant aspects of what we have before us, including, as other speakers have just mentioned, what the order should be as far as Bill C-49 or Bill C-50.

Of course, I think many people are aware of the major concern with Bill C-69, which of course affects all ridings. It affects Timmins; it affects my riding, and it affects every one of the 338 ridings in the country where the Supreme Court has found that there are aspects of Bill C-69 that are unconstitutional.

We then look at Bill C-49, which has, at initial count, 33 references to the points in Bill C-69 that have been deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, the suggestion is made that maybe we should actually look at that which the Supreme Court said was so egregious before we as a committee...or for that matter before the government decides to push forward with legislation that it knows is formed on something that has been challenged.

This, I believe, is the critical aspect of the discussion. When we say there is something that the people in each of those 338 ridings need to be aware of, it is the court's decision on those parts of Bill C-69 that have already been made to the citizenry. How then can we justify dealing with legislation until that has been dealt with?

How is the government planning on dealing with that?

We listened to the Minister of the Environment basically saying that he doesn't think they're right, so we'll just kind of shuffle it around a bit so that we don't have to worry about that.

Well, that isn't exactly what the Supreme Court suggested as the solution to the fact that these points were considered unconstitutional.

We have seen the same attitude since then. The point I want to make has to do with attitude. That is with the plastics ban. Again, the Federal Court is saying that this, too, has remnants that are unconstitutional. The suggestion is just that we'll run roughshod over this, too. It's not an issue.

Of course, then we come back to the stage where we say that this is natural resources, so the fact that the Minister of the Environment chooses to get engaged in that discussion and so on.... Maybe we should just deal with what the Minister of Natural Resources has to say. Of course, we've made reference to having both of them, and even others, come to speak to the committee.

I made a very significant point, when I was on the environment committee, of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of the Environment. Then, when I moved here to natural resources, I made a special point of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of Natural Resources.

I challenge people to find where the major differences are. When we have a Minister of Natural Resources who has not been charged with finding the very best opportunities for every one of Canada's natural resources and when he is using the same set of metrics he had when he was environment minister or when the new environment minister came into play, how does that become significant as far as natural resources are concerned?

We have heard, through our discussions in the past, that parts of their legislation have been unfair. It has been unfair to regions. It has been unfair to provinces. Quite frankly, after the many years I spent on aboriginal affairs and northern development, I know it has been unfair to our indigenous communities, because they have a lot of money already in the game of natural resources.

We talk about some of the other features of how the government looks at our natural resources and how we, as a country, can manage them.

I'll go back a number of years to a meeting with the OSCE in Berlin. At that time, there were discussions and different things taking place. Of course, the environment, science and technology were some of the main features there. The contribution Canada brought to the table in an amendment to one of the major supplementary items being discussed on the floor among this group of 50-something countries—it is beyond the European Union—was that.... They wanted that group to more or less rubber-stamp the fact that Canada believed a carbon tax was the very best solution for managing environmental concerns. That was our contribution to the discussion. We had others: some workings on helping women be involved in parliamentary associations and that type of thing, and on helping out journalists who were being attacked. There were a lot of other things there, but that was our contribution—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, it is good to be able to continue this conversation. I was a little surprised actually that the Liberals denied consent to allow this meeting to continue because I was happy to continue talking about the divisions that Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has inflicted upon our country. Chair, let me just highlight a couple of examples of this.

On the very human level, when I speak with constituents an increasingly common sentiment that I hear, and this is tragic, is that my constituents feel that Canada is broken. In many cases, Chair, they will share things with me like they're simply not sure about whether our country has a future. In fact, there are some who feel like there's no option but to see that the consequences of disunity could be absolutely devastating to the future of our country.

Chair, the reason why that's so tragic is that it could have been avoided and should be the priority of any leader and any member of a governing party. Their first priority in government should be national unity. Yet we have seen over the last eight years an intention of dividing Canadians for narrow political gain. In fact, we saw that just this past week in how the Liberals intentionally included in a free trade agreement with Ukraine a carbon tax mechanism. It's shameful that they would be so intent on division that they do this even with a country at war. To play that sort of politics is absolutely shameful. Chair, I have the court ruling here on the Impact Assessment Act, and we see that it was found to be largely unconstitutional, Bill C-69.

This should be no surprise to anybody who has listened to commentary on this subject over the last six or so years since this was introduced. Every province—in fact the only thing we see provinces united in these days it seems is that they're united against the actions of Justin Trudeau, and that's certainly not a record that one should be proud of. I talked about the carbon tax. It has intentionally divided Canadians, including I mentioned the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It was the Conservatives who initially negotiated that back in 2013. In fact, it was Stephen Harper who looked Vladimir Putin in the face and told him to get out of Ukraine. That's leadership, not like what we have seen by this division perpetrated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

We've see the carbon tax and this recent carve-out that benefits 3% of Canadians. It continues to punish the other 97% of Canadians, including those who are struggling to pay their heating bills for propane, natural gas and other forms of energy that are still subject to that. We see that intention to divide. In conversations around equalization where there should be the willingness to have real conversations with provinces, we have not seen that under Justin Trudeau. He may talk big about a photo op, but then when it comes to what happens behind closed doors, it's division and pitting region against region. We see that with the continued conversation around the emissions cap.

Chair, I could only imagine if the Prime Minister was to pick any other part of the country and tell them that they cannot do what they are good at. Could you imagine any other sector, whether it be manufacturing or whatever the case may be, pick a part of the country and if the federal government was to swoop in and say you can't do what you're good at.... Mr. Chair, it is absolutely shameful the division that is being perpetrated on this country by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberals.

We see that with the Keystone XL. This is the tragic irony, Chair, especially with the Keystone XL pipeline. The Alberta portion of that pipeline is in my constituency, and I saw about 2,000 jobs lost because our Liberal Prime Minister refused to work with his American counterpart because they were so blinded by ideology around the future of energy security in North America that they cancelled the pipeline at a time when Conservatives were vocally saying the entire time that energy security would be key to our world's security future. Yet, we see that the Liberals capitulated. We see that with the just transition, a policy that is designed to divide Canadians for narrow political gain. We see this with LNG.

Again, there were, I think, 18 projects on the books when Justin Trudeau took office. Never before in Canadian history.... Whether it be Canada's fiscal situation, whether it be with the economic opportunities, Justin Trudeau was handed a circumstance that any world leader would be jealous of, yet he squandered it away for narrow political gain.

Chair, the reason that this is so applicable to the conversation we are having today around this amendment and the motion is because the Liberals, throughout the last eight years, have led our country to a point where Canadians are pitted against one another and where there is division layered upon division. The result is that we have seen less prosperity.

The result is that we have seen political divisions that are incredibly harmful. In fact, just this past week, you had Liberals who were almost incoherent because Canadians would dare question that they were concerned about the activist environment minister—the same environment minister who was criminally charged for environmental activism—who would try to influence so-called independent senators, although they certainly showed their hand in the last week. Members of that Liberal party were so outraged that Canadians would dare to share an opinion that contradicted their official narrative. It is truly unbelievable and shameful.

Chair, many of my constituents, as I shared at the last meeting, remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the divisions perpetrated upon our country. In fact, I often still hear—Rick would probably remember some of those days, as I wasn't born yet—that many are not surprised that the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau would continue along that path where he—you've heard of the Trudeau salute—would continue to divide this country for political gain.

It is unbelievable. It is unacceptable, and Canadians deserve better.

Chair, I hope for this committee that Liberal, NDP and Bloc members will take seriously this common-sense amendment to try to take some of the language of division, the politics of division, out of this motion, which has been brought forward for no other reason than to continue perpetrating that division upon Canadians, east versus west, north versus south, urban versus rural and, in this case, the rest of the country against Alberta.

I look forward to continuing the discussion on this. I hope that this committee will see that better is possible, that we can bring home a country that is once again unified. However, the history of the last eight years certainly does not give me and my constituents optimism in that regard. That is why we so desperately need a change. We need a government that is willing to put the unity of our country ahead of personal partisan political goals, and as we increasingly see with the number of scandals that seem to be making Liberal insiders rich, their personal financial interests.

Thank you very much, Chair, for this opportunity. Certainly I'd be happy to expand further on the connection between this amendment and the history that has led to the point we're at today, and I certainly will do so. As I cede my time to the next person on the list, I would ask to be put back on the list so that we can continue this conversation.

Thanks, Chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I guess at this point I'd like to introduce a motion. I move that:

The committee report to the House that the Federal Court of Canada has overturned the Liberal Government’s cabinet order banning plastics, declaring the order, “unreasonable and unconstitutional”, and “invalid and unlawful”, that the committee urge the Liberal Government to act in accordance with Canadian law, and no longer introduce legislation and Cabinet Orders that contravene Canada’s laws and constitution.

Mr. Chair, I'm very surprised that this matter has not been raised at the environment committee yet, which is why I'm raising it today.

The Federal Court of Canada has deemed this Liberal government's plastic ban “unreasonable and unconstitutional”. Those are the exact words from the court. This is the second time in nearly a month that the courts have ruled that the Liberal government's environmental policies are unconstitutional. Last month the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals' “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional, and now we know that Minister Guilbeault's plastic ban is also unconstitutional. I wish he would just quit hiding from this committee so that we could ask him some quick questions on his failed policies, but he keeps hiding from Canadians.

It's been over 240 days since this minister has testified at committee. He has been embarrassed by these court rulings, but Canadians deserve answers. I expect that the Liberals and the NDP will once again block this motion and continue on, but the Conservatives believe the government needs to quit introducing legislation that contravenes the laws and the Constitution.

I hope we can vote quickly on this matter and move forward with our study.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the discussion about the report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled, “The Russian State's Illegal War of Aggression Against Ukraine”.

As Canadians know, Conservatives have always stood with Ukraine. Those who have had the pleasure of hearing at committee some stories from my personal history will have heard that, back in 1991, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, I was the senior adviser to Canada's foreign minister.

I can remember the weekend that I spent on the phone with the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and former deputy prime minister Don Mazankowski, the first Ukrainian deputy prime minister of Canada, discussing what we should do. The Soviet Union had not quite collapsed, and Mikhail Gorbachev was trying to institute his glasnost reforms. It looked like, within a few weeks, there would be a collapse.

We had a long discussion about recognizing Ukraine first. We were the party that recognized Ukraine on that weekend, December 2, and we were the first country in the world to recognize Ukraine as an independent country, separate from the old Soviet Union. That was a momentous thing because, of course, we have a large diaspora of Ukrainians in Canada. I am proud to have played a very small and minor role as a senior adviser to the then minister of foreign affairs, Hon. Barbara McDougall, when we did that.

We do support all of the recommendations in this report, but I would like to draw attention to a couple of particular interest to us. The previous speaker spoke about recommendations 12 and 13, and I will come to that, but I would like to focus a little on recommendation 8, which says:

That the Government of Canada work with its international and domestic partners to improve the coordinated implementation and enforcement of sanctions against Russia, by working to identify all assets connected to designated persons and closing any loopholes that may exist.

There are a lot of loopholes that still exist today. Not to toot my own horn, but I worked on creating the legislation the Government of Canada still uses today back in 1991, when there was the coup in Haiti. We wanted to impose economic sanctions, globally through the OAS and then through the UN, on Haiti and the illegal coup of Haiti's first democratically elected president.

There was no power to quickly impose economic sanctions. We quickly created within about four days a piece of legislation that was introduced and passed unanimously through the House and Senate within about 48 hours to create a bill that gave the Governor in Council the power to quickly move and impose economic sanctions.

We know these sanctions are leaking, and I have raised this before in committee. I said it as a member of the fisheries committee. While the government has targeted specific individuals, and all of those are justified, what it has not done is looked at the leakiness of the sanctions overall. I have an example that has had a very large impact on Atlantic Canada. The snow crab fishery is a very big fishery off Newfoundland, and 52% of the crab fishery caught in Newfoundland was, until this war happened last year, bought by Japan, through contracts.

When the war broke out and Russia was desperate for cash, it started to sell their snow crab at a much cheaper price on the global markets. Most countries respected the fact that that money would be used for fuelling Putin's illegal war and did not bite. Japan did bite, broke every contract in Newfoundland and stopped buying all their snow crab from Newfoundland. Now Japan buys most of their snow crab from Russia, helping to fund their war.

The minister and the Liberal government have never raised those kinds of issues with counterparts. We have raised them with the minister, and the minister was totally unaware that this had happened.

It is not unusual for a Liberal minister to be unaware, but one would think that, when we are dealing with sanctions in a war, it is not just about the individuals but is about the flow of cash that is going in by buying goods of our G7 allies.

I would also like to comment on recommendation 12, which reads, “That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines....”

Remember, with the turbine, Russia did this fake thing about needing the turbine for the pipeline that brought natural gas and oil into Europe. It brought in a need for repair, and the government said it was no problem, to bring it in here and we would repair it. Then the war broke out and Russia said it wanted it back in order to facilitate the continued supply of that oil and natural gas, supposedly. The government acquiesced, granted a waiver, sent it back to Russia and allowed it to continue to ship oil and natural gas to fund its war.

In fact, if we look at some of the testimony in this report, it quite clearly shows that a number of witnesses were flabbergasted the Government of Canada would allow such fakery to happen.

In addition, in a rare moment of clarity on the liquefied natural gas issue, the Minister of Natural Resources said at the time, and this is from page 31 of the unanimous report, that he could not “overemphasize the depth of concern on the part of the Germans, but also on the part of the European Union, with respect to the potential implications associated with their effectively not being able to access natural gas.”

The report goes on:

In addition to the concerns expressed by Germany and the EU, the Minister [of Natural Resources] noted that, in conversations had with the United States, “they reflected and shared the concerns about the divisions that could end up undermining support for Ukraine....”

That was the Liberal minister, but yet when the Chancellor of Germany came to Canada and Germany was begging for our natural gas to deal with the issue of the impact on energy supply in Europe because of this illegal war, the Prime Minister said that there was no business case to ship it oil.

Maybe there is a case to get it done because there is a war on, but of course we were not ready to do that. When the Prime Minister and these Liberals came to power in 2015, there were 15 LNG plants on the books. As they progressed with their agenda, their no-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, or the “no capital bill”, as I call it, to drive capital out of Canada, we have how many? I am sure there are members here who could tell me how many have been built since those 15 were proposed and going through the environmental system.

I hear a colleague say zero. Maybe the true answer the Prime Minister should have given the Chancellor of Germany is that he messed up and that he was not ready to deal with the issue of making sure good, clean, ethical Canadian natural gas could be accessed by Europe, which has become totally dependent on Russia, in case of emergencies. Unfortunately, that was not his answer. He glibly said that there was no business case for it. I am not sure the Prime Minister has actually ever read a business plan, but he told the Chancellor that, and so Germany went and obtained the natural gas it needed from dirty dictatorships. That is the great foreign policy we have had.

My colleague mentioned the fact that if the Liberals were truly interested in supporting Ukraine, they would have put provisions in the free trade bill to enable and foster the ability of our country to supply more munitions to Ukraine and to manufacture them. In fact, if there is a gap in political risk insurance by the EDC, it is easy for the Government of Canada to show its commitment to Ukraine by using the Canada account to help Canadian munitions manufacturers located in Germany and deal with the risk insurance issue.

Have the Liberals used the Canada account to do that? No, so their commitment to Ukraine is, like all other things, fairly superficial and not done with the seriousness one would expect from an ally of an important democratic country in this world and of our diaspora of 1.5 million Ukrainians in Canada who expect more from the government.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the incredible constituents of Calgary Midnapore.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher. I look forward to his remarks following mine.

When I received the request from our shadow minister for transport, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, I was, in fact, very honoured. One of my greatest achievements in my time in the House of Commons was serving as the shadow minister for transport during the pandemic. I can certainly tell everyone that things did not function as they should have during that time. They did not function at all, in fact.

My experience, based upon that time, leads me to the conclusion that there is, in regard to the government, lots of regulation and no responsibility. This also summarizes my conclusion regarding Bill C-52.

I think that this is a theme we have seen with the government. We have seen this with some recent decisions made at different levels of government, as well as at higher courts, including with regard to Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, as we called it here. There, they put in significant regulation against not only pipelines but also, actually, lots of other pieces of infrastructure. We see that this was, in fact, overturned.

Just this past week, as well, we were very happy to see, on this side of the House, the overruling of the single-use plastics legislation that was put in by the government. Again, the government imposes all this regulation on industry, on Canadians and on third parties without taking the responsibility for the regulations that it has imposed upon itself. I think we are seeing this again in this bill.

I am sure that we are aware that 2022 was a disastrous summer travel season, as well as a terrible holiday travel season through December. Really, if we look back at that, it was for the reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech, which was poor management of the transportation sector through the pandemic.

Frankly, they had no plan for the airline sector at that time. As the shadow minister of transport, I certainly tried to get them to produce a plan. They did no such thing. This had significant and widespread consequences not only for Canadians but also for workers across Canada, as well as for different communities and regions across Canada.

I implored them to come up with a plan for regional airlines at the time. Regional airport authorities were left to fend for themselves. I, along with my colleagues, made a very strong push for them to implement rapid testing and implement it sooner than they did, in an effort to more easily facilitate both travel and the travel sector. As well, I tried very hard to convince them not to use the supports for sectors for executive compensation. All these requests that I made as the shadow minister for transport fell upon deaf ears at that time.

In addition, of course, I was not alone in doing that. There were also my colleagues, the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member of Parliament for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

Sadly, in September 2020, we saw 14% of Nav Canada employees being laid off in centres in Winnipeg and Halifax. That is just another example of the lack of action of the government during the pandemic. At that time, 750 families had to go home and tell their families that they did not have a job anymore.

I said back in September 2020, before the throne speech, that our economy simply cannot function, let alone thrive, without major carriers and airport authorities. Ironically, I said that on mini-budget day, and here we are again today.

In 2020, the Calgary Airport Authority alone was expecting a 64% drop in passenger traffic from 2019 levels and projecting a loss of $245 million in revenue. Other airport authorities across the country were facing similar challenges at the time. Stakeholders also reported that some supply chains had been overloaded as a result of the pandemic, with demand for some products having increased by up to 500% and vulnerabilities having become apparent.

At that moment, I asked for the government to develop a plan with common-sense solutions. We continue to ask for such solutions today; again, they are not apparent in Bill C-52. Once again, we see a government that has lots of regulations, yet takes no responsibility.

I will turn my speech now to the point about complaints. Over the past year, the backlog of complaints with the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency, has grown to an average of 3,000 complaints per month, with a backlog of over 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated by the agency. In fact, the bill before us would set no service standards for the Canadian Transportation Agency and would do nothing to eliminate the backlog of 60,000 complaints. I have an example from my riding, where, as of July 2023, I had a constituent waiting two years for a response from the CTA to the complaint they had registered. In the same eight months when the CTA processed 4,085 complaints, the complaints grew by 12,000, doubling in that time. It is no wonder Canadians are dissatisfied with the current process in place, and the legislation would do little to improve it without said standards.

As well, it is not clear which entities would be covered by the bill as the bill would be left to future regulations. A theme we have heard on this side in discussing the bill today is there are lots of regulations. In fact, we have seen from the other side of the House that members take advantage of the regulations. They take advantage of Canadians in using these regulations. We might see something that is perhaps gazetted and then all of sudden brought into implementation, with both industry and Canadians being forced to respond and to pay the price for the use of regulation by the government.

Fundamentally, the bill remains a toothless bill that contains no specific remedies to the problems that have been plaguing the system since the pandemic. I will add that during the difficult time coming out of the pandemic, the then minister of transport blamed Canadians for forgetting how to travel. I talked about the government's shirking responsibility, and there we see it again with the minister of transport's not saying that it was his bad or that he should have come up with a plan during the pandemic, but rather blaming Canadians. He was not even addressing it through the complaint process, nor was he willing to fix the complaint process.

I have a quote from a significant air passenger rights advocate, Gabor Lukacs. Anyone who sits on the transport committee certainly will have communicated with him. He says, “There may be penalties, but even those powers are left to the government to create.” Since I am throwing out Gabor Lukacs's name, I would also like to mention Roy Grinshpan, who has also been an incredible advocate for passenger rights and passenger advocacy.

Even the pilots with whom I worked so closely during the pandemic are not in favour of the legislation. The president of ALPA Canada, Captain Tim Perry, for whom I have a lot of respect, brought to my attention that safety might be compromised as a result of the implementation of the bill to ensure that passengers are taken care of. This is simply another concern, which is that passengers are not being taken care of, and even the pilots who fly the planes are voicing their concern over this.

To conclude, I talked about the implementation of regulation, so much of it, but again there is no responsibility. The then minister of transport said that there would be consequences for service providers that do not meet the standards, but he did not disclose what they would be. Again, there is so much regulation and no responsibility. The government tells Canadians and industry time and time again that they have to do this and that, but it never takes responsibility for the legislation it implements.

In conclusion, Bill C-52 and the government are about lots of regulations but no responsibility.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

It is very clear why the minister is hiding and doesn't want to testify in front of this committee: On October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional. On October 26, Minister Guilbeault was forced to backtrack on his failed carbon tax. He finally admitted that it was unaffordable for Canadians. On November 7, the government's own environment commissioner stated that Minister Guilbeault is failing to meet the government's own emissions targets, and on November 14, the Federal Court ruled that Minister Guilbeault's plastic ban was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

No wonder he is hiding.

I expect the Liberals and the NDP will help cover up the minister's tracks again by stopping debate on my motion, but Conservatives do believe that Canadians do deserve answers from this minister.

Thank you, Chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

We now know, today, that he is not going to appear today after numerous calls from this committee to appear this week at committee to become accountable, so it is very clear that Minister Guilbeault is hiding from Canadians, and it's very clear why he's hiding from Canadians.

On October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals' “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional. On October 26, Minister Guilbeault was forced to backtrack on his failed carbon tax. He admitted that it was unaffordable for Canadians.

On November 7, the government's own environment commissioner stated that Minister Guilbeault is failing to meet the government's own emissions targets. On November 14, the Federal Court ruled that Minister Guilbeault's plastic ban was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I think it's very relevant given that we are talking about the amendment that this Liberal government's policies such as the carbon tax and Bill C-69.... When we say "This Liberal government's policies" in the amendment, I think it encapsulates everything my friend and colleague is so eloquently talking about. Even inside the amendment it says that these kinds of policies are leading to greater division in our country. He's making a case for how divided Canada is after eight years of this Prime Minister. I think it's very relevant.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted to be participating in this debate at the finance committee. It's very kind of you to have me. I recognize a face from the environment and sustainable development committee. Greetings to him, and I want to publicly invite him to go for a spin, should he feel so inclined. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I want to address some concerns about this issue, because we're talking about respect for the Constitution, and also respect for the will of each and every province. I think it's quite important, when we live in a confederation—this is what Canada is all about—that we respect the fact that, yes, some provinces can have their own agenda.

We do indeed have the Canada pension plan, but we also have the Quebec pension plan, which has a long history. It was established in the mid-1960s, following frank, honest, effective and successful negotiations, setting Quebec apart from the rest of Canada. It doesn't mean that people are happier or less happy, but it does mean that people have taken full responsibility for their choices and decisions, and we know how that's turned out. Soon, the plan will have been around for 60 years, and things seem to be going well. The original motion refers to the committee recognizing, “the important contribution of the Quebec Pension Plan which was established independently at the same time as the Canada Pension Plan”. If things weren't going well, we would know, but they are, so that's good.

From our standpoint, it's important to respect the will of the provinces in certain areas of jurisdiction. That means having frank, constructive and fruitful discussions to create a win-win situation for Canadians. All of us here want to make everyday life better for Canadians. No one is here to create problems. We have opposing views on how to go about it, which, of course, is the whole basis of politics. We have differing views, but when ideas clash, good things come. That's how it should be, and we need to respect that.

These last eight years, we have seen this government's insatiable appetite to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. We saw examples of that recently in Supreme Court and other rulings on the federal government's ambitions in environmental matters. It's not for nothing that I brought this up earlier. I am on the environment and sustainable development committee. I am the official opposition's critic for the environment and climate change, so I am particularly attuned to the issue. This case sets the example. We can do things the right way, and we can respect one another's decisions and areas of jurisdiction. However, that wasn't the case when it came to the environment, in many respects.

I can hear my fellow members rushing to point out that the Supreme Court gave the federal government the right to legislate in relation to carbon pricing. The challenge to the Liberals' carbon tax went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government had the authority to implement the tax. Just because the Supreme Court says you can do something doesn't mean you should. What happened next? The government's approach clearly did not have the intended result.

Need I remind my fellow members that, after eight years of this Liberal government lecturing the entire planet, Canada was ranked 58th out of 63 countries for its efforts to tackle climate change? That is a far cry from the Liberal rhetoric, which is all about preaching endlessly. That score did not come from the official opposition, the Conservatives, or some institute. It came from the UN, which nearly a year ago, ranked Canada 58th out of 63 countries, following eight years of Liberal rule. Clearly, the Liberals' policy is not having the intended results.

The reason I bring it up is Bill C‑69, which a number of provinces took issue with, including Quebec. It contains provisions that are almost insulting to the collective memory of Quebeckers, with the federal government giving itself somewhat of a veto power over Quebec's hydroelectric projects.

Whenever I talk about it, I feel as though I'm divulging a secret that has unfortunately been kept for far too long. People are shocked when they find out. They wonder, “What's this all about?” Rivers are the site of hydroelectric projects, and rivers are under provincial—not federal—jurisdiction. What, then, is this power the federal government has given itself?

Section 7 of the Act created under Bill C‑69 contains very specific provisions that allow the environment minister to subject major hydroelectricity projects to environmental assessments, should he be so inclined. Those projects are none of his business, though.

Quebec is quite fortunate to have everything it needs, geographically speaking, to unlock enormous green energy potential through hydroelectricity. We are obviously very happy about that. Shortly, I will go over some of the landmark moments culminating in Quebec's energy self-sufficiency and talk about how people in the forties and fifties had the vision needed to turn Quebec into a hydroelectricity powerhouse. That can be said of the seventies as well. We saw that same vision come to fruition recently, when the current premier inaugurated the Romaine hydroelectric complex, alongside the Honourable Jean Charest, Quebec's premier from 2003 to 2012 and the person who green-lit the project.

Through Bill C‑69, the federal government gave itself the power to subject hydroelectric projects to federal environmental assessments.

Let me say this. Like an adult, Quebec carries out its own environmental assessments, and the system works. Of course, people will remember how certain assessments were carried out hurriedly. Everyone in Quebec obviously remembers when the Parti Québécois government unfortunately bypassed the environmental review process for the most polluting project in Quebec's history, the McInnis cement plant in Gaspé. The then environment minister gave the go‑ahead to the most polluting project in history.

That was a sad day, indeed. Need I point out who the environment minister at the time was? No other than the current member for Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois. Dear friends, now when you hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois preaching about the environment to everyone who doesn't think like he does, remind him that he was the most polluting environment minister in Quebec's history.

All that to say, Quebec is capable of carrying out its own environmental assessments of hydroelectric projects. Why, then, did the federal government empower itself to redo what Quebec has already done? Going through the process a second time is absolutely pointless. It goes much further than that. As far as we're concerned, the environmental experts who analyze—

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-69 is basically what the member was referring to. That is the “no more pipelines” bill that was imposed here in Canada on Canadian citizens.

As we look forward and work with Ukraine in developing their energy infrastructure, we need to take a very long look at what the Liberals have done for legislation on developing energy in our own country. We should be helping them instead of hindering Ukraine in moving forward with energy development.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, exactly.

I think it's important to note that this Liberal government has continued to put forward policies that divide our great country. Whether it be the carbon tax that I've talked about and will continue to talk about, Bill C-69, which is referred to as the “no more pipelines” bill, or Bill C-48.

Abraham Lincoln famously said that a house divided cannot stand. We need to have a country that is working together. We need from every corner, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, everyone rowing in the same direction and working together to make this the great country that we know it should and can be.

When we look across our country, we see individuals increasingly feeling as though they are being left out by this government, whether you are a logger in British Columbia or you're working in the oil fields in Alberta.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it actually is self-evident that the carbon tax is affecting farmers, and agriculture is a big part of the economy. If this member is saying somehow that agriculture is not part of the Canadian economy, I wish he would just come out and say that, because my farmers certainly feel differently than that.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I might speculate that maybe their lack of respect for farmers is leading to the extreme food insecurity that millions of Canadians are facing right now. I firmly disagree with the member that agriculture is not.... I believe agriculture is part of the economy, and I'm going to continue to talk about it. It says it right here—“a pillar of Canada's economy”—so I'll continue to talk about it.

Talking about agriculture this year, the testimony we heard to this very finance committee in Winnipeg, from agriculture groups and farmers themselves, was no doubt.... They agreed that probably the best solution is not any more carve-outs, but to cancel the carbon tax once and for all. When you think about it, is there any other button this government could hit that would reduce inflation by 16% tomorrow, and from being 33% above target? What other policy lever would be that effective in fighting inflation? Honestly, I mean this. When I no longer have the floor, what's their answer to reducing inflation? I have a policy right now that will reduce the rate of inflation by 16% and 33%.

Although I agree with most of Mr. Macklem's testimony on the impact of carbon tax on inflation, it should be pointed out that he just talked about the direct impact, and he was only talking about fuel. That's not even the full impact on inflation; it's actually just part of it. The other thing he said.... I know members across the aisle, whom I respect, have said, “Well, yes, Phil, but it's only for one year”—and it's true that he did say that. But the reality is the carbon tax is set to increase all the way to 2030, to 170 tonnes, which means it will have an impact on inflation every year until 2030. So, it doesn't stop this year. The impact on inflation will continue to go forward, because when you cancel the carbon tax, you eliminate not only the carbon tax now, but the future increases as well. That's a question I'm looking forward to putting to Governor Macklem going forward, because it is clear, basic logic on that.

When you look at the overall divisive policies of this government and the carbon tax carve-out, what you see is that the carbon tax is getting more and more holes in it. In fact, it's almost untenable going forward, because you have the heating oil exemption; you'll have the farmer exemption, hopefully, soon; and then there are other exemptions that are not in there, which I don't understand quite why. No one has been affected by the affordability crisis more than persons with disabilities. Why should there not be a carbon tax exemption for persons with disabilities?

On that, despite the fact that we're 1,000 days from the introduction of legislation with respect to the Canada disability benefit, and it's been over one year since the enabling legislation, we still don't have it funded. This government has to be fair to persons with disabilities, and we heard great testimony on that, with respect. We are now “double punishing” persons with disabilities, who unfortunately, and to the great criticism of our society, are often at the lowest quintile of economic performance. This is not a reflection on them; it's a reflection on us as politicians.

I'm hoping that the fall economic statement finally funds this benefit, which I believe had unanimous support in the House of Commons. But now, in addition to that, we're going to charge individuals a carbon tax, which is very difficult.

Canadians who are most economically vulnerable in general are often hurt disproportionately by regressive taxes like the GST and the carbon tax. I had the opportunity to talk to a poverty advocate. He said that, in his experience, only 4% of those who are most financially vulnerable, those at the bottom of the economic spectrum, file their income taxes. For those individuals making an income of over $20,000 to $25,000, they are paying taxes, and it's a net economic loss. For those unfortunately not reaching that threshold, or even sometimes higher, they are in receipt of net benefits.

For example, if individuals who have had difficult economic times, for whatever reason, do not file their income tax returns, which according to that poverty advocate is 96% of them, they don't get the carbon tax rebate. However, the reality is, on the meagre earnings they carve out—and I'm sure they are doing their best to make more but for whatever reason, obstacles and barriers are in their way that I'm sure are beyond their control—they have to pay carbon tax. If they are paying rent, they are either paying it directly or paying it indirectly through heating costs. They are probably using some type of transportation that likely requires some type of fossil fuel, and once again, they are paying for that in dollars.

We had further testimony from the City of London as well, and they talked about how difficult it was. That, Mr. Chair, was some of the more startling testimony about the number of individuals who lost their lives on the city streets in London. It was deeply moving for myself and, I'm sure, for the other members. They agreed that one thing we could do as parliamentarians would be to reduce the cost of heating. Many of the organizations that provide solace, or care, or respite to individuals who find themselves unhomed have to pay the carbon tax. That is at the cost of providing more benefits to individuals who are in the most difficult circumstances we could imagine. Instead of buying extra winter coats, they are having to pay for the carbon tax.

It's incredibly difficult for me to understand why a government that has mired our country in a housing crisis, where mortgages are up two or three times, where rent is up two times, and that's if you can find a place.... In some communities in my riding, like Cobourg and Port Hope, they are facing vacancy rates of less than 1%, so even if you have the $2,000 or $2,500 a month to pay for housing, it just doesn't exist. I just cannot understand why the government continues to go in the direction of making life more difficult.

Quite frankly, the root of a lot of those issues is our productivity crisis. Canada, unfortunately, is ranked near the bottom of the OECD with respect to productivity. I hope, in the fall economic statement, they are looking through a lens of productivity. If I were advising the Minister of Finance—maybe she's listening, but I don't know—I would put every single economic policy through a productivity lens. In some cases, there might be things that outrank productivity, but, for everything this government does, they should look at the productivity of it, because even inflation is affected by productivity.

Of course, we've heard a lot from the Governor of the Bank of Canada Tiff Macklem, who talked about inflation and the effect of demand on inflation. However, there are two sides to it. There are two sides to the ledger. There's both demand and supply. What the Governor of the Bank of Canada is attempting to do is reduce demand. He's trying to get fewer dollars chasing goods. He's doing that mainly by talking about monetary policy, reducing the money supply and increasing interest rates. That reduces the money. He's even, unprecedentedly.... I have to admit, I was a little taken aback at the finance committee that he was so forthright. Good on him for calling for the federal government, which was spending at a growth rate of 3.5%, to bring it down to under 2%. Otherwise, it would be at cross-purposes or unhelpful to his efforts.

There's the other side. There's the demand side. Slowing demand is painful. Slowing demand increases interest rates, which makes mortgages more expensive. It also causes unemployment and puts you on that path towards recession and maybe even “stagflation”.

Now, there's another way. There's another side of the ledger. We call that “supply”. The study of that is called “supply-side economics”. If we can increase the number of goods, society becomes more prosperous. It doesn't come with the pain that reducing demand does. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you increase supply, you increase economic opportunities for everyone. You increase prosperity. You increase the wealth of the nation. You increase the size of the pie. What I firmly believe this government needs to do, not just to combat inflation now....

We could be in for, as Tiff Macklem and other economists have commented, structural high inflation, meaning we're simply not producing enough goods to meet the demand we have, especially with the large population growth we have. Rather than tamping down demand by saying, “Canadians need to do with less and be happy about it”—which seems to be the calling words of the other side—I believe Canadians can produce more, make more and be more prosperous.

When we increase economic growth—it's been proven over and over again, from JFK to Brian Mulroney—we help the most vulnerable. It's when we get that economic squeeze in supply.... It's not the wealthy in our society. It's not the millionaires who suffer. They'll be just fine. When you're making a million bucks a year and lose 10% of your income, it's probably not a good time. I've never earned a million dollars, but it's probably not a good time. However, if you're making $10,000 a year and lose 10% of your income, you're probably not going to eat some days. It's the most vulnerable who get crushed.

Actually, once again, Governor Macklem came out and pretty much said this. Governor Macklem called inflation “a tax that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable members of society." Once again, I was surprised by Governor Macklem's candour on the topic. I look forward to having him back here again so he can amplify these comments, because inflation is an incredibly corrosive force on our economy. It waters down the wealth of Canadians.

I understand that the governor has to do what he has to do right now to reduce inflation, which is increase interest rates. His job is going to be made harder, meaning he'll have to increase interest rates more if this government can't get their spending under control. In fact, Scotiabank said, in a recent report, that actually a full $700 of the average mortgage is the direct result of this government's profligate spending. In that same report, I believe, they said that investment in housing is down 14%, meaning that we don't have more houses coming online.

We are welcoming newcomers, which is fantastic and great, but we owe it to them as well as to individuals who were born in Canada, to enable them to afford housing. If we can't deliver the housing for newcomers and all Canadians, that's devastating. Not being able to afford a house isn't just that you don't get a lawn; oftentimes people choose not to have families at that point because they just don't have any place to put their children. We are causing all sorts of social and economic pain by not having the appropriate housing plan in place.

Our leader Pierre Poilievre has come up with a common-sense housing plan to reduce taxes, to reduce red tape and to incentivize municipalities to get more housing starts out the door, but right now we're going the wrong way. In fact, in testimony before this very finance committee, the CMHC said that, no, the current policies will not bridge the housing gap, which means we have another nail in the structural inflation coffin.

Our productivity issues are reducing our supply of pretty much everything and now we have housing.... We are unable to increase the number of houses that we need, which would increase housing going forward.

Then on top of that, we're also limiting the ability to make use of our own natural resources. Of course, a large portion of inflation in CPI is actually fuels, such as gasoline, diesel. Because we are limiting our ability to be self-sufficient—even though we have clean, great Canadian natural gas, Canadian energy—the impact of that is we will be increasingly dependent on other countries, meaning we will be dependent on world markets with respect to future fuel prices, which will leave us exposed to a shock in energy prices. This government, in many ways, is creating the perfect storm for structural high inflation.

We need to have a common-sense plan to get this economy back on the rails. Our leader has said very clearly that CPP is something that we believe should continue to be national in scope—with, of course, the noted exemption of Quebec. We would encourage Albertans and Alberta to stay in CPP, but we do have trouble with the language, particularly the third line of Ms. Bendayan's third line in there, third paragraph.

I would like to move an amendment at this point to delete that and replace it with the following, “The Liberal government's policies such as the carbon tax and Bill C-69 are lead to greater division in our country.”

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My first few questions will be for Mr. Bewick once again.

In keeping with the theme of the carbon tax, we saw that the carbon tax was sold under the pretense that it would somehow fix the environment and put more back into Canadians' pockets than what they would have to pay into it with these phony rebates. We know that both those things are not true now. The public budgeting officer, the Liberals' own budget watchdog, said that many Canadians, and more Canadians, will have to pay more into it than what they get back.

We've seen that the Liberals have missed every single climate target they set for themselves. We've seen a massive flip-flop on the carbon tax. Just recently the courts have ruled that parts of Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill, were unconstitutional. It was a big win for Alberta and a big win for the energy sector.

What does it say to you about these policies?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

My questions are for Mr. Bewick.

Thank you for so eloquently giving the temperature of what Alberta is feeling like and what Albertans are feeling like today. After eight years of this Prime Minister, we've never seen the country so divided or broken—whether it's anti-energy, anti-Alberta or anti-growth laws; legislation like Bill C-69, the northern pipeline bill or Bill C-48, the tanker ban; or the carbon tax.

We recently saw the Prime Minister do a massive flip-flop on this carbon tax, giving 3% of Canadians—in Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals' poll numbers are tanking—a break on the carbon tax on their home heating. We also recently saw a very out-of-touch, Liberal Atlantic and rural affairs minister say that, if the Prairies want a carve-out like what Atlantic Canadians got, they should “elect more Liberals”.

Well, there are Liberals in western Canada. There is one here in Edmonton who is a minister. I can't figure out whether he's irrelevant or whether he just has no voice at his own cabinet table.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Bewick: Is this unfair treatment to the rest of Canadians, and should all Canadians not have gotten this carbon tax carve-out for home heating?

Opposition Motion—Reducing Home Heating Costs

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we agree that it is absolutely unparliamentary for someone to give the finger on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why we have called on the entire Liberal caucus to apologize for the conduct of one of its MPs. By the way, the Speaker did not say we were not allowed to address the incident. He did say he would come back, but we are free to speak, and we will not be censured.

We know that the Prime Minister now has a carbon tax coalition with the separatist Bloc Québécois. We know that he did this because he could not maintain his existing coalition. The pressure the Conservatives mounted on the NDP forced the NDP to collapse and admit that it had been wrong all along.

I remind the House that there has been only one party that has been consistent throughout and will be consistent forever. We are the only common-sense party that would axe the tax for everything, for everybody and everywhere, forever.

I note that the NDP today has now performed yet another flip-flop. Originally, the New Democrats wanted to quadruple the tax. Yesterday, they said they wanted to pause the tax. Today, they will not take a position, because they have omitted mention of the Prime Minister's quadrupling of the carbon tax in the motion. They do not want to stick by their position. They think they will quietly sneak back into the carbon tax coalition and have nobody notice. Well, their constituents are noticing, and that is why working-class people across the country are abandoning the NDP in droves.

Even the NDP Premier of Manitoba has now said that the carbon tax represents an attack on working-class people and therefore cannot work as climate change policy. I will note that we are getting all pain and no gain from the Prime Minister on the carbon tax, because his own environment commissioner came out just today and confirmed that under the current policies, including the carbon tax, he will miss his 2030 climate targets. He has missed his Paris accord climate targets again and again. Emissions continue to rise under his leadership, which proves that the carbon tax was never an environmental policy. It was a tax policy designed to pick the pockets of people and put more money in the hands of politicians to spend. This is political and governmental greed at its worst. It is no wonder Canadians have never been worse off than they are after eight years of the Prime Minister.

What I find interesting is that the Bloc Québécois has announced a costly coalition with the Prime Minister. This was confirmed in an article in La Presse, where the Liberal ministers said they had an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to keep this Prime Minister in power for another two years. Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois saved the Prime Minister. We were going to adopt a motion to reduce the cost of heating for everyone, but the Bloc Québécois was there to prevent the motion from being adopted, to vote against working-class people who want to heat their homes, to vote against seniors, to vote against people who cannot pay their bills, and to prop up the Prime Minister.

The funny thing is that the Bloc Québécois is going against Quebec's position. The Quebec government joined the other provinces in opposing a federal carbon tax as part of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-69 and as part of the lawsuit against the carbon tax. The Quebec government wanted to curb federal taxation powers, but the Bloc Québécois is on the federal government's side. This is a centralizing Bloc Québécois. Each time the federal government decides to impose a tax on Quebeckers, we can expect the Bloc Québécois to say yes. It said yes to bigger government in Ottawa, and no to Quebeckers. That is the Bloc Québécois's real record.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois is afraid of an election. He wants to hang onto his position as leader so he can go on big trips to Europe. He wants to fly there on a plane that burns fuel so he can talk about the sovereignty of various overseas groups that are far removed from with the concerns of Quebeckers. I doubt the people of Beloeil—Chambly who are struggling to pay the bills are all that interested in the European separatist causes that the Bloc Québécois is obsessed with. The Bloc Québécois has no common sense. It is not working for Quebeckers.

Only the Conservative Party has the common sense to take the second carbon tax off the backs of Quebeckers. Quebeckers do not want to pay the taxes that the Bloc and Liberals are imposing on their gas and food anymore. Quebeckers want lower taxes so that work pays again. Quebeckers want the federal government to encourage municipalities to cut the red tape so more affordable housing can be built. Only the Conservative Party can get those things done.

In the next election, Quebeckers will have two choices. The first is a costly Liberal-Bloc coalition that raises taxes, takes their money, sets criminals free and doubles the cost of housing. The second is the common-sense Conservative Party, which will bring home lower taxes and bigger paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and housing in safe communities.

The choice is between either the costly coalition that takes one's money, taxes one's food, doubles one's housing cost, punishes one's work and frees criminals into the street or the common-sense Conservatives who free one to bring home powerful paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and groceries in affordable communities.

That is why I move the following amendment to the motion, which would add section (d): “Extend the temporary three-year pause to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil to all forms of home heating.”