Bill C-375 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements)

This enactment amends the Impact Assessment Act to provide that the federal government and the provinces may, if certain conditions are met, enter into agreements to exempt certain projects from the application of that Act.

Income Tax Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269, which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre.

One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019. He has an MBA, he has a strong grasp of numbers, and he knows the energy sector inside out. This bill addresses precisely these very important issues, namely energy and taxation, as well as their economic and environmental dimensions.

Before I continue, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, who mentioned earlier that there was a power outage on the north shore. Things are bad when the Manic-5 generating station is down. Needless to say, the people at Hydro-Québec will be sorting this out.

Bill C‑269 targets several extremely important objectives. Its first objective concerns the environment. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and take a much more environmentally friendly approach. We all agree on that, but the way to win people over is definitely not by imposing or forcing things on them. Like I say all the time: Pulling on a flower will not make it grow faster. What we need are positive incentives based on good old common sense. That is exactly what this bill has.

It is also important from a taxation perspective, because we want to let people and companies hold on to more of their money so that they can invest in much more economical and environmentally friendly approaches.

We also have to find ways to use the energy that is currently going to waste. This bill will incentivize entrepreneurs to find new, much smarter ways to harness the energy that their business is generating.

Essentially, here is what this bill proposes. Businesses generate a tremendous amount of heat as a result of the operations taking place in their facilities, but this heat is wasted. Up to 30% of this waste heat could be used efficiently and intelligently. That is smart because it is nothing new. The energy is already there. It is simply a matter of capturing it, storing it and using it in a meaningful way.

When I was preparing the speech I am delivering today, I learned that this involves generating electricity from waste heat. I will not hide the fact that when I saw “waste heat”, I found it somewhat odd, bordering on the absurd, or even a little suspicious. As a result, I would rather talk about recovery, because waste heat is heat that escapes and is lost into the atmosphere, whereas it could be used through recovery.

This brings to mind a fundamental principle in economics and ecology, namely that the best energy is the energy we do not consume, or rather, the energy we use because it already exists. That is precisely the objective of this bill. Some will say that the member for Calgary Centre did not invent the principle behind this bill. Of course not.

For decades now, if not longer, some companies have been harnessing, capturing, storing and making smart use of the heat generated by their operations. The difference is that there is no incentive for that in the federal plan.

We believe that this approach, using or recovering waste heat, should be treated the same as solar and wind energy. It is just common sense. Wind energy has potential, but it is not the answer to everything. Solar energy also has potential, but it is not the answer to everything, either. These come with both challenges and benefits. The same is true of heat recovery. This approach is pragmatic, effective, environmentally friendly and economical. In short, it is a conservative approach.

That is why I urge everyone, including my colleagues in the House, to support this bill, because it addresses precisely what brings us all together. Above all, it is meant to be efficient and cost-effective for everyone.

In fact, this could affect nearly every industry sector. I am going to have to put on my glasses, because there are so many that I have no choice but to read them. We are talking specifically about heavy industry material handling, cement plants, glass manufacturing, chemicals, paper and forestry, as well as mining, energy, and utilities. In short, it affects just about every sector of the manufacturing industry. Thousands of companies would be able to recover this heat through a tax incentive, and that is what the bill proposes.

We are talking about tax incentives. I have to say I am a car enthusiast. People in the automotive industry say it: the greenest cars, aside from100% electric vehicles, of course, are used cars. I say this to make people fully aware and understand that manufacturing a car, whether electric or traditional, has a significant environmental cost, not to mention an environmental impact. Someone who buys a 100% electric used car creates double the benefit, in other words, the environmental impact is lower because it is a used car, and using an electric car certainly produces fewer emissions. It is a win-win situation.

We made an announcement over the weekend. Our leader was there, as was our colleague from Ontario, who earlier announced the private member's bill to eliminate the GST on used cars. A vehicle that has already been manufactured and taxed should not be taxed a second, third or fourth time because people want to buy that used vehicle. The GST has already been paid once. It does not need to be paid repeatedly, especially since, from an environmental standpoint, it is always better to buy a used car than a brand new car. All environmentalists say so.

This is an environmentally friendly Conservative measure. Yes, we Conservatives are environmentalists because we are taking a pragmatic approach. We are prioritizing people's pocketbooks. A consumer who buys a used car may not necessarily have the means to buy a new one. However, this measure benefits both the consumer buying the car and the environment because a used car is much greener than a brand new one. Any environmentalist will tell us that. They may not say that this is a Conservative approach, but it is. I am saying it.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It takes a pragmatic approach. It is meant to put more money in people's pockets and give businesses more funds to reinvest in their operations in order to make them greener, more efficient and more profitable, while ensuring strong environmental protection and sound economic stewardship when it comes to energy management.

As I mentioned earlier, this is nothing new. Incentives are already in place in France, and the results are quite promising. As stated in a press release from CEA Liten, “Lower process water consumption (either direct for steam or indirect, such as for wet cooling towers) is an added benefit.” This makes it a win-win situation.

Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving. However, the government still needs to view it as a green approach, just as it does with wind turbines and solar energy.

That is why I urge the Liberals to support this bill. If, for some reason, they have any doubts, they should recall that three years ago I introduced Bill C-375. The idea behind that bill was one project, one review. It was common sense. People voted against it, but guess what? A year ago, in the Speech from the Throne, the King acknowledged that it was a good thing. He himself said that the government would implement a law ensuring that there is a single environmental assessment for each project. If the Liberals are recycling my idea for Bill C-375, I invite them to do so immediately for the bill—

Opposition Motion—Canadian Economic Sovereignty

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Portage—Lisgar.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which is based on good will. Through this debate, we seek consensus in the House so we can move Canada forward to meet the challenges we face in 2026.

Now more than ever, Canada is at a crossroads. We need to make the right decisions, secure our autonomy and demonstrate our sovereignty. We have seen this government take some steps in the right direction. We have some suggestions for additional steps it can take, and we hope the government will take them to heart. That is why I am making the following remarks.

In my mind, this motion and debate are goodwill propositions to address the challenges that Canada has to face in 2026.

Canada has everything we need. Other countries would go to war to get the natural resources we have. We need to unlock the potential of our natural resources in a smart and respectful way. It must also be done autonomously, to ensure that Canada has autonomy when it comes to natural resources and energy. This will ensure that we are able to sell these resources abroad and get revenues that will help develop Canada and its natural resources to their full potential.

That is why our motion recommends certain courses of action to the government, such as repealing the legislation arising from Bill C-69 concerning assessments and other things. I would like to remind the House that I introduced Bill C-375 two years ago as a private member. My bill essentially called for one assessment per project. I was advocating for one project, one review, as opposed to two contradictory, competing reviews that overlap with one another. I wanted one project, one review. Even the Bloc Québécois agreed with our bill in principle. Unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it two years ago. We were amazed to hear the King repeat our argument word for word in the Speech from the Throne: “one project, one review”. As I was saying earlier, the government has taken some steps in the right direction, and this is one example. However, we believe that the legislation arising from Bill C-69 should be repealed.

The same goes for the oil tanker moratorium and the industrial carbon tax. I mention them because those paragons of virtue over there never stop lecturing everyone about the industrial tax. For nine years, these people called us Conservatives all sorts of names because we wanted to abolish the consumer carbon tax, but what did they do? A year ago, they changed their tune. They reversed course on the carbon tax issue and got elected because of it. It is wild, because they insulted us for nine years, and then they reversed course. Today, they say it is important to maintain the federal industrial tax because it is important for other countries. That is exactly what they said about the carbon tax for nine years, and then they scrapped it. They started down this road. Now they have to see it through.

There is also the emissions cap and the federal electric vehicle sales mandate. I will not go into details about my personal life except to say that I have been driving a fully electric car for about two and a half years now. Yes, a Conservative can drive an electric car. Guess what? I bought it used, so it was half the price. Even better is that I did not get a rebate, and there was no mandate in place. That is the responsible way to sell cars and to offer consumers electric cars. They are not for everyone, but if they meet certain needs and people want to get one, then there is no need for a mandate, as is currently the case. This is an effective demonstration.

We also have other proposals, such as rewarding provinces, businesses and workers who invest in Canada first. Our leader made a very positive case when he proposed eliminating the capital gains tax for reinvestments in Canadian businesses. That is a sound solution that deserves full consideration.

We also need to create a tax credit for reinvestment in Canada to spur domestic industrial activity. We should provide bonuses for interprovincial free trade as well. Canada is a world champion of free trade, and yet sadly, its 10 provinces have a lot of barriers. The federal government has removed some of these barriers at the federal level, but the provinces must be encouraged to do the same, which is why we are proposing free trade bonuses and measures to protect Canadian innovation. We have options and avenues that are worth considering. We have already offered our collaboration and support.

Some members will recall that, a few months ago, this government passed Bill C‑5, which sought to break down our siloed approach as a country in order to unlock our natural resource potential. Although it did not go far enough and should have gone further, we knew we were on the right path. That is why the official opposition offered its full support. Bill C‑5 includes the substance of Bill C‑375, which I introduced. The Liberals voted against my bill, while the Bloc agreed with the principle, which we now find in Bill C‑5.

Yes, some good things have been done, but the issue is that, if we want to face the challenges, we need to live up to our responsibilities. The Liberals got elected a year ago by saying “elbows up” to take on the White House. However, instead of “elbows up”, we have been seeing “thumbs up”. On two occasions, when the Prime Minister went to the White House, he ended up doing a “thumbs up” with the President. A few days ago, in Switzerland, he lectured everyone about standing up. Funnily enough, he did not talk about “thumbs up”. No, he did not talk about those things.

That is why consistency is important, especially since, unfortunately, we are not seeing results. According to the government, Bill C-5 would enable our country to realize its full potential as an energy superpower by creating new trade and energy corridors that would diversify our economy. That is all well and good, but those are words, not actions.

Now more than ever, we must find ways to assert our sovereignty, because Canada is facing major challenges, particularly with our neighbour, the United States, which brings to mind the very interesting and intelligent remarks made by President John F. Kennedy right here in the House of Commons on May 17, 1961.

He said, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies.”

More than ever, we need to get back to this spirit, especially today. Why is this? It is because there are two anniversaries we can celebrate today. First of all, Mr. Jeremy Hansen is 50 years old today.

Mr. Hansen is the Canadian astronaut who will be going to the moon aboard the Artemis II mission, which, as we know, is American. Yes, Canada can work constructively with the Americans. I want to recount one of the great events in our diplomatic history. Exactly 46 years ago today, six American hostages were released in Tehran. We were the best of friends at the time. While the United States was facing the worst diplomatic crisis in its history because a country had allowed terrorists to occupy the American embassy and hold victims hostage for 444 days, Canada sheltered six American diplomats for 84 days in the residences of our diplomats, including, of course, Ken Taylor, the ambassador.

Canada has had some great diplomatic moments with the Americans. We all wish we could return to that, but it will not happen overnight. That is why, now more than ever, we must develop our autonomy in terms of our natural resources, our economy, our knowledge and our energy. The proposals we have made to the government today would do just that. We all want the House to continue on this path to ensure Canadian autonomy by adopting this motion.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. It appears that I addressed another member using the informal form “tu”. I am quite embarrassed and must apologize. I have been an elected official for 17 years and yet I made this mistake. Even in my private life I tend to address everyone with the formal “vous”. Well, it happens to everyone.

It is Thursday evening. It has been a good day, and I am in a good mood, so I want to start this speech, my response to the budget speech, on the right foot. There is one thing in this budget that makes me very happy, and that is page 82.

On page 82 of the budget, there is a box, a separate bit of text, that very clearly defines the political philosophy that inspires me here in the House. It addresses the idea of “one project, one review”, meaning one environmental review.

My colleagues will recall that, a little over two years ago, I introduced Bill C-375 in the House. After eight years in the House of Commons, this was the first time I had the opportunity to introduce a private member's bill that would be debated in the House. There is a lottery, and those who win get to introduce a bill.

Before I go any further, I wish to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Wascana.

About two years ago, I introduced Bill C‑375, which aimed to do exactly what is found word for word in the budget speech on page 82, specifically, “one project, one review”.

The purpose of that bill was to speed up the process and make it much more efficient and pragmatic so that projects could get done. Now more than ever, we need to unlock our full potential in terms of energy, natural resources and green projects. We know that in the past, a project had to undergo a provincial assessment and then a federal assessment. Sometimes, these assessments contradicted each other and, ultimately, everything had to start over from scratch. It was completely inefficient.

The purpose of Bill C‑375 was to move projects forward in a positive and constructive manner. The goal was not to take away accountability, but rather to eliminate the consecutive and often conflicting assessments. The objective was to work together to cover all the environmental aspects of a project by requiring one assessment, not two, to get to the bottom of the matter immediately.

I am very pleased that the government has adopted my proposal. However, I would like to point out that the bill was introduced on February 12, 2024. There was a debate in the House on March 18 of that year and a vote on May 8 of the same year.

What happened? Obviously, we Conservatives voted in favour. Since the bill was at second reading stage and the vote was on the principle of the bill, the Bloc Québécois members at the time supported the essence or spirit of Bill C-375. They had some reservations, of course. That is perfectly fine. That is how democracy works. There were 150 votes in favour of the bill, but unfortunately, this bill to create a single environmental assessment was defeated by 177 votes from the NDP and the Liberal government.

I see members opposite who remember that situation. At the time, they insulted us for wanting to axe the carbon tax. In the end, they axed it themselves. They were against the “one project, one review” principle back then, but now it is reproduced word for word on page 82 of the budget. I just wanted to point that out.

That is one of the only things in this budget that I see as positive. The government keeps referring to this budget as “generational”, saying that it is truly a turning point in the history of the country and that generations of Canadians will be able to benefit from it.

Well, it is not. Generations of Canadians will pay the price because we are living beyond our means. We are living on credit. It is a credit card budget.

There will be a $78.3‑billion deficit. That is twice as much as Prime Minister Trudeau's deficit. The man had many fine qualities—really, I mean that sincerely—but there is no denying that he was spendthrift.

No one could have ever believed that a Prime Minister with such international prestige, a banker who is highly regarded around the world, would do worse than Mr. Trudeau, but that is what happened.

I would like to remind members that the Liberals were elected on a promise to run a deficit $19 billion lower than what they are now saying. Members should also recall that the deficit is twice as high now as it was last year at around the same time.

What is even more shocking about this budget is that there is no timeline for getting spending under control and balancing the budget. There is no timeline at all. On the contrary, deficits will pile up: $78.3 billion this year, $65.4 billion next year, $63.5 billion the year after that, $57.9 billion the year after that, and finally $56.6 billion. There is no plan to get back on track, and $321 billion is being added to the debt. Again, what this current Prime Minister is doing is twice as much as Mr. Trudeau planned to do. These people did not get elected by saying that they would do twice as badly as Justin Trudeau, yet that is exactly what they have done.

It is our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will have to pay for this. I am blessed by the gods and very privileged in life. I am a father, and for the past five years, I have been a grandfather. That is why, even though I cannot show it, I am wearing a little bracelet made by my three-year-old granddaughter. I try to wear it as often as possible in the House because I have always believed that we are here thanks to our parents, but that we are here for our children and grandchildren. This belief has been a driving force for me throughout my 17 years in politics. More than ever, that is how I see it and that is what I want.

Debt is a bill that we pass on to our children. Debt has to be paid off at some point. Interest on debt has to be paid every year. That interest amounts to $55.6 billion that we are going to pay. The people watching at home need to know that every dollar and cent of the GST we pay is not used to improve services or make transfers to the provinces to improve health care services or other things. It is used solely and exclusively to pay the interest on the debt. Every penny of the GST will be used for that instead of investing more in health care. The government is investing $54.7 billion in health care, while GST revenues total $54.4 billion. That is why it is imperative for the government to get the finances under control, to get the deficit and debt reduction under control and, above all, to have a timeline for returning to a balanced budget.

Allow me to remind the House that, yes, a balanced budget is possible. Here in the House, we have an experienced man who was once elected to the National Assembly and who now serves all of Canada as a member of the House of Commons. On March 11, 2015, he said, “Balancing the budget...is a way to cement the credibility of the province and the financial stability of the province.” Who said that? It was the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I had the pleasure of serving alongside him in the National Assembly in another life. The current parliamentary secretary to the current government's Minister of Industry balanced Quebec's budget. That means that yes, it can be done. As a Quebecker, I am very pleased to have had that man around at the precise moment when he was the finance minister because, thanks to him and the government he belonged to, including the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec was able to balance its budget. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Unfortunately, this man who sits here in the House could serve Canada much better if he were in cabinet. Since he is not, could the Prime Minister at least consult him on how to tackle the deficit issues? This is a very heavy burden that will have far-reaching consequences for the future of our children and our great-grandchildren.

I just want to say in the House of Commons that, in my mind, this budget is good for one aspect, one project, one evaluation. We have that definition on page 96 of this budget. This is very interesting. This is exactly what we proposed two years ago here in the House, but unfortunately, the Liberals voted against it at that time. Today, they are doing what we were asking them to do two years ago.

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to answer questions from the member for Winnipeg North.

Obviously, the Liberals cannot do worse than what they have done in the last 10 years. The member asked me to be more co-operative. He picks up our bill and picks up our ideas, such as cancelling the carbon tax, but would he pick up my personal idea to have one project, one evaluation? A year ago, I tabled Bill C-375, and what did the member and all of his colleagues around him do? They refused it. It was never time to be good, but it is now time to be good for the energy sector and to be open to new projects as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today, which will set the record straight for Canadians about who we are and what we can be if we reach our full potential here in Canada.

Canada is a wealthy country, and it draws its wealth from its millions of citizens, from its hundreds of thousands of innovative businesses, and from its natural resources. The fact is we have been truly blessed here in this country. We have it all, all of the natural resources—whether it be critical minerals, minerals that we have been using for centuries, or what is rightly known as green energy, like hydroelectricity or biomass. We have everything in Canada to develop our potential and provide energy to meet all the needs of Canadians.

That is why I believe that, for as long as we need what we call fossil fuels, these fuels will have to come from Canada. Let us take advantage of this wealth we have to develop our full potential and, as my colleague so aptly stated just a few minutes ago, send Canada's natural resources to the rest of the world along with the Canadian workers whose labour creates that wealth. We need to allow these businesses and their full potential to be used how they were meant to be used.

Moreover, it is disappointing to hear the Prime Minister claim that, in certain circumstances, there is no viable business case for fossil fuels. That is completely false, as we will see later in my speech. Let us not forget that Canadians consume 51 million litres of oil and gas per day to meet their needs. Therefore, as long as Canadians need fossil fuels, I will support Canadian oil and gas and Canadian energy.

Two troubling examples have come to light that demonstrate how this government is stifling the potential of our natural resources.

First, I would like to quote a report by Olivier Lemieux out of Quebec City, which was broadcast by Radio-Canada on March 19. According to an expert from Texas, “Canada has made bad choices” for the oil industry. The author explains how it all works. Oil leaves Alberta, goes to Texas, and then comes back to Canada—not far from my riding, in fact, in Lévis—to be refined. However, rather than having our oil go through Texas and enriching Americans along the way, things could have been done differently.

According to Jean-Paul Rodrigue, professor at the department of maritime business administration at Texas A&M University, “Canada is stuck in a situation that puts it at a disadvantage”. “Canada has made bad choices for ideological reasons”, laments the Montreal native, who has lived in the United States for 30 years. He believes that environmental considerations are preventing Canada from exploiting its vast oil resources to their full potential.

As I said, Alberta's oil goes to Texas and then comes back to Lévis. Obviously, Texans are taking advantage of this to make whatever profit they can.

The other thing is utterly embarrassing. On August 26, a CBC anchor was interviewing the Polish ambassador and informed him that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States. The ambassador was so embarrassed by the question that all he could do was laugh. He admitted that Poland was buying natural gas from the United States, but claimed it was encouraging Canada at the same time. How so? Well, that natural gas bought in the U.S. comes from Canada. That means Canadians are sending their gas to the United States, and the United States is sending it to Europe. In the meantime, countless business opportunities are being squandered.

That is what prompted commentator Mario Dumont to say the following in the Journal de Montréal:

While [the Prime Minister of Canada] was visiting his country, Poland's ambassador in Ottawa revealed during a CBC interview that the natural gas his country buys is still Canadian natural gas.

...

In a nutshell, the gas we refuse to sell to Europe ultimately ends up there anyway, minus a juicy profit margin swallowed up by an American company. The bottom line is this: there is no benefit to the environment, a major economic loss to Canada and a tidy sum being pocketed by the United States.

I am sorry, but this is ridiculous!

That is the issue we are talking about today.

Are we going to keep pretending that everything is just fine? Are we going to keep saying that we, here in Canada, are nice people and will not rock the boat even if others do? Or instead, will we seize the opportunity to achieve our full potential in every energy sector that we, as Canadians, need?

The ambassador of Poland illustrated it very well, saying there is a business case. That is contrary to what the former prime minister said during his campaign, that, sorry, there was “no business case”. What a missed shot that was, because, yes, there is a business case. As very clearly identified by the ambassador of Poland in an interview on CBC, it is time for the government to open its eyes and act correctly for the good of all Canadians.

Let us not forget that those folks have been in government for 10 years. They have stepped up only once on an oil project. Let us not forget that Bill C‑69 slowed down any momentum, but they did do one thing: They decided to buy a pipeline. First they lecture the entire planet, then they buy a pipeline. Can anyone say that it did any good? Not really, we just have to look at what happened.

When someone decides to buy something that is not for sale, they have to pay more. The Canadian government paid $4.5 billion to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, which had not even been built yet. It paid twice what it was worth. Not only did we get ripped off a bit on the price, but then it still had to be built.

When the Liberal government bought the pipeline the estimated cost was $7.4 billion. Any idea how much it actually cost? It did not cost two, three or four times more, but five times more. The cost went from $7.4 billion to $34.2 billion. Add to that the $4.5 billion and that is almost $40 billion. That is taxpayers' money that was used to buy a pipeline and build it, when that is absolutely not the government's mandate. In our view, the government is there to ensure that everything is done properly according to the rules and not to get in the business of pipeline ownership. Today, the government is trying to sell it and all the experts agree that if it sells, it will be worth half of what it cost. Congratulations.

Fortunately, Canadians can rest assured because the government created the position of minister responsible for government efficiency. The minister who holds that position is the one who came up with the bright idea to buy the pipeline. That is amazing. I know that minister well. He is my neighbour. It is the member for Louis‑Hébert, whom I respect and admire. I hope he will learn from what he did and never do it again.

I am proud to be a Quebecker and proud of the extraordinary legacy that has been handed on to us thanks to the vision that Quebec politicians had in the 20th century and still have today. They have been able to develop the full potential of electricity. However, there is also potential in fossil fuels, whether it be oil or gas. Quebec makes its own choices, but here is the reality for Quebeckers. According to an annual analysis by the École des hautes études commerciales, oil accounts for 36% of Quebec's energy, whereas natural gas accounts for 13%. Last year, Quebec consumed 9.7 billion litres of oil. Although I support electrification, the reality is that we still need oil in Quebec, and as long as we need oil, then I will support Canadian oil. Transportation is on the rise, and 9.7 billion litres is a record level of consumption in Quebec. Consumption is not dropping. It is increasing. Let us not forget that the F-150 has been the best-selling vehicle in Quebec since 2016.

The current provincial government has shown some openness on the issue of gas. On July 4, Quebec's premier stated that he would be open to the idea of building a plant. He is also open to the idea of building a liquefied natural gas terminal, if Quebeckers support the idea. Even yesterday, he said that he would take a page from the federal government regarding Bill C‑5 and table a bill that he is calling Bill Q‑5. We will see. I should point out that Bill C‑5 included Bill C‑375, a bill I tabled that sought to ensure that a single assessment be undertaken for each project. However, the Liberals rejected it.

I will now happily answer my colleagues' questions.

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his re-election and on introducing this bill.

He talked about the principle of “one project, one environmental assessment”. That is a principle we agree on. Just 13 months ago, we actually had a vote in the House on Bill C‑375, which had the same exact goal. The Bloc Québécois agreed with the principle that we had put forward, but, curiously, the Liberals voted against it.

As the legal experts suggested, our approach was to say that for each project, federal experts and experts from the province where the project was taking place should meet, work together and conduct one assessment.

Is that exactly the approach the minister is proposing?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, who is my MP when I am here. I am not going to say that he's my MP half the time, because I do spend a lot of time here in Ottawa, but it is much the same. In fact, I would like to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer, because he once gave me good advice when I needed professional services in Hull.

I also liked some aspects of the Speech from the Throne, such as where it says, "one project, one review". That is exactly what I said when I introduced Bill C-375 on February 12 of last year, but my colleague's caucus voted against it. The Liberals have finally changed their minds, which is a good thing.

However, there is something missing from the throne speech. There has to be a budget this spring. The House made that clear yesterday, when it decided that we need a spring budget. The government has been in power for over 10 years, the Prime Minister has been in office for two and a half months, and the Minister of Finance said on February 4 that the government was preparing a budget. Why will the government not table a budget immediately? Canadians need it.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, but I have to say, it is such a challenge to follow in the footsteps of my leader on this very specific issue.

Canadians are once again being forced to deal with an unfortunate government decision to take even more money out of taxpayers' pockets.

According to the Liberal plan, in just a few days, on April 1, the carbon tax will increase. We are not talking about a small hike of 3% or 4% because of inflation. We are talking about a 23% increase. Such a dramatic tax hike is something that happens rarely, if ever. Unfortunately, the Liberal carbon tax has the blind support of the NDP and the enthusiastic support of the Bloc Québécois, which desperately wants to drastically increase the carbon tax. That is their choice. It is their decision. It is not ours.

Canadians are struggling right now. We saw some sad incidents in Montreal where the police had to intervene because hundreds and hundreds of people were getting impatient when trying to access the food bank. Canada is a G7 country. Montreal is the capital of francophone America, but unfortunately, it is facing terrible situations like these. This is not the Canada that I love. Canada needs to do a lot better.

People are being crushed under the weight of financial hardship, and housing prices and rents have tripled. Meanwhile, this government, to help taxpayers, wants to raise the carbon tax on April 1. That is not the right choice.

Some will say we need to address climate change. Yes, we recognize that climate change is real and must be addressed, but with pragmatic measures, not dogmatic ones. What is the government's track record? Think back to when the Liberals got elected in 2015. They were so proud to say, “Canada is back.” A few weeks after the election, the Prime Minister arrived in Paris, all proud and happy, saying that Canada was back and that there would finally be concrete measures to control global pollution and that Canada would be a leader. The founder of Equiterre, who is now a minister and is currently being sued by Equiterre, was saying he was proud to be Canadian and to see the Prime Minister talking like that.

Is Canada back? Canada is way back. That is the reality.

After eight years of this Liberal government, after eight years of lecturing from the Liberal Prime Minister, after eight years of imposing and increasing the Liberal carbon tax, what has this government achieved? Zilch. Not a single target has been reached, except during COVID-19. I hope the plan is not to shut down the economy, as we had to do during COVID-19, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada is not among the 13 countries that met the Paris Agreement targets. Canada actually ranks 62nd out of 67 countries in terms of climate change performance. Despite all the announcements, all the words, all the commitments and all the ambitious targets, the Canadian government, this government's Liberal Canada, comes in 62nd out of 67. That is not according to the MEI, the Fraser Institute or the Conservative Party. That is according to the UN. Every year, the UN presents its rankings at COP. At the latest COP, which was held in Dubai, Canada ranked 62nd. I will have the opportunity to talk about the minister's trip to Dubai in committee a little later. This is not something we are happy about. It hurts to say it, but it is the truth. The Liberals were too focused on a dogmatic approach instead of a pragmatic one.

If the Liberal carbon tax worked, we would know it, but it is not working. That is why the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition, mentioned an article published in today's edition of the Journal de Montréal under the headline “For the first time in history, Canada is the most polluted country in North America”. According to the article, the 13 most polluted cities in North America are all in Canada. That is the Liberal record after eight years of government lectures. No one is happy about it, but that is the reality.

We believe that we have to get rid of the Liberal carbon tax, and we are not the only ones who feel that way.

Seven of Canada's provincial premiers cannot all be wrong at the same time. Seven provincial premiers have asked the Liberal government to drop this policy, which will cause inflation and, most significantly, leave taxpayers with even less money in their pockets. One such premier is the very Liberal premier of Newfoundland. Although I do not know him personally, he is someone who, like all Canadians, sees a tax hike of this magnitude as a very bad idea. The 23% increase comes at a time when everyone is struggling with housing, the cost of living or the price of food. Regrettably, we are not even talking about the price of food anymore, but about the incidents happening at food banks. That is not the Canada we want.

For that reason, as Conservatives, we support pragmatic approaches above all. Climate change is real and we have to deal with it. In his speech at our national convention in Quebec City last September, the “Quebec City speech”, as we call it here, our leader described our party's vision and the pillars of action that we intend to focus on in our fight against climate change.

This was done at a Conservative national convention. Some 2,500 delegates from across Canada, representing all 338 ridings, gathered in my region, Quebec City. I am very proud of that. The reason I am explaining the partisan political framework for this announcement is that, quite often, when people do not want to talk about something, they announce it on a Friday afternoon at 4 p.m. in a brief press release. They say thank you, have a good night, and no one talks about it. In contrast, I am talking about a milestone speech for our party.

In English, I would say that it was a milestone speech by our leader in front of 2,500 members and supporters of our party, from coast to coast among the 338 ridings, who attended this convention. That milestone speech by our leader, le discours de Québec, was very important. We set the table for the next government, if we receive that support. We would be honoured to receive the support of Canadians.

This environmental plan is built on four pillars. The fundamental objective is to reduce pollution. The government has demonstrated that pollution cannot be reduced by taxing it. We believe that what we need are very pragmatic measures, not dogmatic ones.

The first pillar would be to provide tax incentives for companies to use high-tech solutions to reduce pollution. The companies are the ones creating the greenhouse gases, and they know why they create pollution. It is up to the companies to decide for themselves. They are the ones that know why they create pollution and how to reduce it. They should be incited and encouraged to do so through tax incentives.

The second pillar of the Conservatives' action on the environment would be to green-light green projects. Now more than ever, we need green energy such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear power. We need these green energy sources. We need to green-light green projects. I am pleased to see that my colleagues opposite are smiling at this proposal. We introduced Bill C-375 to speed up the process. I am pleased to know that the Liberals are going to vote for it, and no doubt the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will have an opportunity to explain why he thinks this is an excellent idea.

The third pillar would be the Canadian advantage. Here in Canada, we have everything we need to deal with climate change and everything we need in terms of natural resources, energy and knowledge. We just need to use them. I am from Quebec. HEC Montréal published its “State of Energy in Quebec” report a few weeks ago. It found that consumption of petroleum products increased by 7% over the past year. The thing that worries me the most is that 48% of the products consumed comes from the U.S. energy sector, more specifically from Texas and Louisiana. I have nothing against those two states, but as long as we are using fossil fuels, we should be getting them from Canadian sources instead of sending millions of dollars to another country.

The fourth pillar, and quite likely the foundation of all of this, would be to work hand in hand with first nations to address climate change.

We are against radically increasing the carbon tax on April 1. Seven provincial premiers cannot all be wrong. On the contrary, they are right. I would like this government to give Canadians a break and scrap the idea of increasing the Liberal carbon tax.