Debates of Sept. 27th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Usually, in economics and the humanities, and even in the pure sciences, if you want to solve a problem, you have to define it first. Then, you need to find the sources of the problem. Lastly, you need to address those sources.

The problem is inflation. Is inflation purely a Quebec or Canadian problem? No, every country in the G7 and the OECD is dealing with inflation. That is the first element. Is it the fault solely of the federal government, then? I do not think so. Did it act appropriately on every aspect of the inflation issue? I am not sure, but it does not bear sole responsibility. That is what I want to say.

Then, we see that inflation was at 7% in August and that it dropped a bit because of the price of oil. That means that it is relatively high. Everyone is affected by inflation. No one is immune, but the most hard hit are people on a fixed income: seniors and people with low incomes. We need to focus on these people and try to find solutions to lessen the impact of inflation on their lives. That is the intelligent approach.

That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing. We asked ourselves how we could help these people. Once we have determined what the problem is and who is affected by it, we must determine why we have inflation. There are two factors. One, the demand for goods and services has risen sharply. Interest rates have gone down and federal assistance has been astronomical, which has greatly increased the demand for goods and services. That, in turn, has created inflation. Two, the supply side of the equation has shrunk.

Madam Speaker, I listened respectfully to members of the Liberal Party and I would like them to show some mutual respect, if at all possible.

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

I understand the hon. member.

I will rephrase my request to members.

I would ask hon. members on the government benches to please take their conversations to the lobby.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I was saying that supply has decreased. This is partly because of broken supply chains, the war in Ukraine and the labour shortage. These are the causes. That means that, if we want to solve our problems, these are the things we must act on.

What are the solutions, then? What should we do? First, we need to help those that are affected by inflation. We need to increase support for seniors. The Bloc Québécois has been saying this for a long time, but it is truer now than ever. Seniors live on a fixed income. They have been hit hard by inflation. We need to help them.

We also need to help low- and middle-income people. They are also suffering from inflation. We need to be prudent in the way we help people. We cannot implement measures across the board. If we try to help everyone, we will just be stoking inflation. We need to target the people who are really in trouble and help them more.

Then, we need to increase the supply of social housing. That is clear. Rents are higher because there is a shortage of housing units. You do not need a doctorate in economics to understand that. When something is in short supply, prices rise. We need to increase the supply of social housing.

We also need to eliminate our dependence on oil. I forgot to mention that the causes of high inflation include the increase in oil prices and the war in Ukraine. We need to transition to renewable, clean energies. That is what we need to do.

The extremely populist Conservative Party is doing the opposite. Conservatives love oil and they have no qualms about saying so; they eat it on their cereal in the morning. They say that the solution is to stop punishing oil consumers. They want to lower taxes so that people can consume more oil.

Are they helping our seniors? The answer is no. Are they helping people in difficulty because of their income? The answer is no. They are helping Suncor, Imperial Oil and so on. Once again, those who are producing dirty oil will be rewarded by the Conservative Party's immoral policies, and this is just the beginning.

If there is an election in three years, I can only imagine what we will be debating here in the House. What a horror show it will be. It will be the bogeyman all covered in oil. That is what will happen, and it is no laughing matter; it will be appalling. I hope that he will not light up a cigarette.

Then they attack the central bank, the Bank of Canada. That is something else. I taught for a long time. I have a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in economics. The Bank of Canada often hires the most talented economists. It is internationally known as one of the best banks. In 1991, when it decided to adopt a policy focused on fighting inflation, it was only the second bank in history to do so. For 30 years, it kept inflation within a range of 1% to 3%. It worked.

That no longer works because of the pandemic. This is an exceptional situation. Should we blame the bank? The answer is no. We need to trust it and allow it to remain independent from political power, or the situation could become dangerous. If things go off the rails, people will flock to cryptocurrency, which is not a good idea. When I heard the leader of the Conservative Party extolling the merits of cryptocurrency, I was taken aback. I told friends of mine that I did not understand what he was saying. No one understood, although most of them have a doctorate in economics. I do not think they were the ones who were wrong.

We are getting to the solution. The Bloc Québécois thinks that increasing the GST credits is a good idea, a good solution. The government is on the right track.

Let us look at what the Conservative Party is proposing. The Conservatives claim that, if we reduce that tariff, everyone will benefit. That is false, because any such reductions will be offset by an increase in payments to Canadians who are struggling the most to make ends meet. The ones who will profit from this obscene populism will be the oil producers. Really, now. My colleague from Jonquière asked the leader of the Conservative Party a question, and the leader in question did not even know that there is a carbon exchange in Quebec.

We still have a long way to go. If the Conservatives want votes in Quebec, they will have to learn more about the Quebec nation, what it is and what it wants.

What does the Quebec nation want? It wants less oil and more renewable energies. The Bloc Québécois is here to remind everyone of that.

In Quebec, we believe in the potential of renewable energies. That is how we will be able to protect ourselves from future oil price shocks. Quebec will consume less and less oil, and that is the direction we need to take for the sake of the planet and our future economy.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member addressed the point I was going to bring up.

In his speech, the Leader of the Opposition accused a member of the House from Quebec of wanting to tax Quebeckers through carbon pricing. He does not seem to realize that, since 2013, Quebec has had its own carbon pricing and that, as a result, the federal carbon pricing does not apply to the province.

Does my colleague not find it strange that the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to get votes in Quebec, is so disconnected from what is happening in the province?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, that, in a way, sums up what I was getting at. I thank my colleague for the question. It allows me to elaborate a bit.

In politics, as members know, we try to reach people to listen to their problems and to offer them solutions. We then come to the House to represent them and speak on their behalf.

When a party leader comes here but does not even know the reality of the Quebec nation and is incapable of understanding it, how can he possibly represent Quebec in the House of Commons? It is impossible.

I know that the number of Conservative MPs is now nine and is trending downward. I would therefore suggest that the Conservative MPs from Quebec reason with their leader and have him stop talking nonsense about Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments made by the member.

We have two pieces of legislation: Bill C-30 and Bill C-31. Both of those measures fall under what the member is advocating for, with a targeted approach to helping those most in need through the GST rebate and the dental insurance program. Canadians would benefit by them, but it would appear the Conservatives would like to continue to debate the legislation.

Can the member offer any thoughts in regard to how we can assist Canadians by ensuring that this legislation passes in a timely fashion?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the two bills seek to help lower-income households deal with inflation. We obviously agree with increasing the GST credit. We have been talking about that for a long time, and we are glad that the government is waking up.

However, there is one thing we do not like as much.

It is a Liberal tradition, one they learned from the NDP. The NDP are Liberals in a hurry. What they want is to have every possible reason to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

They told themselves they were going to help households. Some, wanting to go even further, thought they would help households while sticking their their noses in the business of Quebec and the provinces. They thought it would be really cool, because they believe they are smarter than everyone else and know what Quebeckers need better than the Quebec government does. They figured they would show up with their nice cheques adorned with a maple leaf and just bypass Quebec's authority. That, however, is not a good idea.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who is always very reasonable, on his speech. I really appreciate the fact that he is always so measured.

I was shocked earlier to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he did not know that Quebec had its own carbon exchange. Seriously? A party leader who wants to become prime minister does not know that Quebec has its own carbon exchange?

Does my colleague think the rest of the opposition leader's speech makes sense if he really did not know that?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am still in shock. I would like to thank my colleague for his question, because it gives me a chance to gather my thoughts. In fact, this is all so absurd that I am struggling to make sense of it.

It is important to understand that the leader of the Conservative Party is not crazy, not at all, so we have to ask why he did not know that. The answer is that he does not care. He is switched on to what western Canada wants. He listens to what his cronies in Alberta and Saskatchewan want and caters to their needs.

Then he says he wants to be the prime minister for all Canadians and expects us believe that. What he really wants is to defend the views of western Canada and then try to sell those views to everyone else, including Quebec.

I have to tell my Conservative friends that they will find us, the Bloc Québécois, standing in their way.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a bit difficult to speak after the House leader of the Bloc Québécois. He is such a colourful speaker that I cannot hope to outdo him, even when I dress in yellow.

He is an economist, and he explained clearly that a better knowledge of the technical details is necessary before proposing measures that could have major repercussions on the public.

Of course, we all agree that inflation is very real and that it affects everyone, all the people in all the ridings we represent, and we want to propose solutions. However, before rushing to introduce concrete measures, we need to know whether or not it is the right thing to do.

Today feels like Groundhog Day. Back in June, the Conservative Party moved a similar motion with almost identical wording. That motion talked about the rising cost of living and proposed, once again, to abolish the carbon tax in order to put money back into the pockets of Quebeckers and Canadians. However, I find it a bit odd to hear the Conservative members from Quebec say that this measure will put money back into Quebeckers' pockets when the carbon tax does not even apply in Quebec.

As my colleague clearly explained earlier, the carbon market is working very well in Quebec. Unfortunately, the goal of this Conservative measure may not actually be what they say it is. They are proposing a solution to inflation, which is a very real problem. However, instead of helping families, this measure would help the oil companies, which are not currently doing their part. Families are doing their part and getting money in return. It is a system that works quite well, and that is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said.

The Conservatives have a gift for twisting people's words. Just yesterday, during the debate on hurricane Fiona, I made a connection between extreme weather events and climate change. In response, the Conservative Party leader said the Bloc Québécois was in favour of importing foreign oil into Canada. That is not it at all. We want to cut fossil fuels out entirely and invest in renewable energy.

They did the same thing with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. The Conservatives hand-picked one section and put their own spin on it. What the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually said was that the general consensus among economists is that explicit carbon pricing is the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think we can trust the Parliamentary Budget Officer on that. Of course, he did not study Quebec's carbon market, which the Bloc Québécois considers to be the best system. It works very well in Quebec, anyway.

I will not repeat all the causes of inflation, since my House leader did an excellent job of that earlier. However, I would like to emphasize the repercussions that inflation is having on people in my region, eastern Quebec.

The average salary in the Gaspé region is $52,000 and in the Lower St. Lawrence, it is $40,000. That is not a lot of money for a whole year. With the rising cost of living, the cost of groceries, the cost of gas and the price of housing, people are already struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis, and have been for many years. They have to count their pennies and stick to their budgets. Now they are really stretched to the limit.

I visited a few farms this summer. With skyrocketing input costs and shortages of parts needed for farm equipment, our farmers' job is getting harder and harder. We are talking about the people who help put food on our tables three times a day. Inflation is having an impact on these people and on the people they feed.

As I have said before in the House, a protest was organized recently by low-income people in the RCM of La Mitis, in my riding. Their slogan was: “I paid my rent. Now I have a place to starve to death”. These people were telling us that they have to choose between paying the rent and buying groceries. They have to choose between food and shelter, both of which are basic needs. We are at a point where people are having to choose between these two basic needs. It is frightening to see what an impact inflation is having on the people in my riding.

Over in the Avignon RCM, in Chaleur Bay, the Gaspé wardens' table offered financial incentives for building housing. Obviously the spike in construction costs has turned off the developers. There are not a lot of people who want to invest, and that is leading to a housing shortage in the region.

The housing investments that the federal government is making are good, but sadly insufficient. Often these big amounts go to large cities, and the regions are overlooked. We are seeing a positive demographic shift in the Gaspé and Lower St. Lawrence for the first time in 20 years, and we would love to welcome more people, but we have nowhere for them to live.

The same goes for the labour shortage. We are eager to bring in workers from other parts of Quebec or Canada and from around the world, but there is nowhere to put them. That is having a direct impact on the people in my region.

Gilles Dufour, executive director of Moisson Mitis, told us that requests for assistance have increased by between 30% and 40%. That is not insignificant. Every holiday season, I like to go and help distribute Christmas baskets to those most in need. We are seeing just how much those numbers are going up. Also, fewer people are available to help out or to donate goods or money because they are dealing with the rising cost of living. It is a vicious cycle and we are having trouble helping each other out.

I believe that we all agree with the first part of the Conservatives' motion. Inflation is very real and we must find solutions. However, I do not believe that scrapping the carbon tax is the magic solution.

As I mentioned, this is the second time they have tried to pass this in the House, but a majority of members rejected it because we know there are other solutions on the table. Of course we have to have these debates and use all means necessary to implement measures quickly. The Bloc Québécois has proposed several measures and I will come back to that. My colleague spoke about solutions that could be implemented.

I think the Conservatives are misrepresenting what the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, said about the carbon tax. This tax would not cost households 60% more, as the Conservative Party is claiming. Once you dig deeper into the facts and into the technical details, it becomes clear that this claim is incomplete and lacking specifics. As I said earlier, the tax does not apply in Quebec. It applies in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. The government committed to giving the proceeds of the gas tax directly back to individuals and families through climate action incentive payments.

The PBO did his analysis in March 2022. In his report, he said that the federal carbon tax is set to rise by $15 per year from $50 per tonne in 2022 to $170 per tonne in 2030. The Conservatives claim it is 60%, but the PBO based his analysis on the 2030 price per tonne, which is $170, so that is not the current price, but the Conservatives are muddying the waters. That will not happen until 2030-31, which is when some families might feel the pain.

We know oil companies are not contributing their fair share. They should be paying more. Eliminating the carbon tax will not help us fight climate change and meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Yes, there is room for improvement. Nothing is ever perfect, but for the time being, that is not the solution that will put money back in people's pockets, certainly not for the low-income families that get that tax refunded.

What we need to do is focus on the subsidies being given to oil companies, the money being taken from the wallets of Canadians and Quebeckers and given to oil and gas companies.

I am running out of time, but we will have plenty of time to talk about this later.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It is good to hear the Bloc Québécois praise pollution pricing, the carbon tax, regardless of the fact that the Quebec government went all the way to the Supreme Court to challenge our national plan.

Is the Bloc Québécois ready to admit that we are acting within our jurisdiction and that our carbon tax is a good thing for the provinces that do not have one?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the federal government did not interfere in this particular Quebec jurisdiction. The carbon market is working very well in conjunction with California's, and we would not have wanted the federal government to proceed as it did in health care, for example, when it talked about hiring nurses, doctors and so forth and wanting to put conditions on the funds it gives to Quebec and the provinces. We would not have wanted it to do that with the carbon tax because we have a system that is already working well.

I may have said a few positive things about what the government is doing, however, much more needs to be done on the environment. The government says it is green. It says it is a champion of the fight against climate change, but that is actually not true. The reality is that we can never reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets. We continue to finance the biggest polluters. The government is implementing a polluter pay system, but we are helping polluters continue to pollute.

More needs to be done and the Liberal government needs to do better at this time.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives think there is a better way to reduce climate change than tripling the price on carbon. As the member said, that better way is technology. Here is a little example. In Vancouver, where I live, we had the AirCare program for about 20 years for people to test their vehicle emissions. Because of technological advances, we no longer need to do that. Clearly, technology can be the solution to pollution.

The cost of living has gone up by 11% in the past year, so why does the Bloc Québécois want Quebeckers to suffer yet another blow? This is a tax on people, people who are suffering. The member said people are afraid of starving to death.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to correct my colleague. I do not think that abolishing the carbon tax will help Quebeckers. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. That was what my speech was all about.

We have not heard many speeches from our Conservative friends proposing effective environmental measures. I do not think I have heard any at all, actually. We are hearing more and more about new technologies. Perhaps that is what the hon. member was referring to. For example, carbon capture technology costs millions of dollars, and we do not yet know if it really works. By the time this technology is actually used by most major polluters, our greenhouse gas reduction target dates will have come and gone.

In conclusion, I think we could be doing more on the environment, but what the Conservative Party is proposing here today is certainly not the solution.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, corporate profits are rising twice as fast as inflation while wages are rising only half as fast. Oil companies are making record profits and their CEOs are making millions of dollars in bonuses. Oil and gas made $147 billion this year. Imperial Oil made $2.4 billion.

When workers are hurting, big oil and gas companies are making profit. I hear the Conservatives clapping at that. On the backs of workers, big CEOs are making record profits. We hear them clap.

Does the hon. member side with the New Democrats in providing an excess profit tax on oil and gas companies for profits over $1 billion in order to reinvest money in solutions that make life fairer and more affordable for families, or does the Bloc take the Conservatives' side with big corporate CEOs?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I liked what my colleague said at first when he was criticizing what the Liberal government is doing. He then asked me if I would prefer to side with the NDP or the Conservative Party.

We know that the NDP is walking hand in hand with the Liberal government, so I prefer to side with the Bloc Québécois, which says that we should take all the money that is currently being given to oil companies to help them pollute less and invest it in renewable energy. Let us invest it in wind energy and hydroelectricity as Quebec has done for years. That is what the Bloc Québécois is saying.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

People are struggling with the cost of living. They are struggling with rising inflation. They are struggling to pay for gas, groceries and housing. They are worried about their future and are worried about the future of the planet. They are doing everything right, yet they are struggling to afford basic necessities while billionaires and big corporations are getting richer than ever.

The cost-of-living crisis and rising inflation are being driven by corporate greed. Corporate profits are rising twice as fast as inflation, and as said a number of times today, wages are rising only half as fast. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals want to acknowledge the fact that big corporations are benefiting from this crisis and that big corporations are using this crisis as an opportunity to raise prices beyond their increased costs. They are making massive profits while families are hurting.

The Conservatives want to inflame the anger and frustration. They applaud when we talk about Canadians struggling and massive corporations making record profits. Canadians are rightly frustrated and angry, but the Conservatives fail to provide solutions that would actually make a difference in people's lives. They do not want to address the fact that big oil companies are making record profits off the backs of Canadians.

When the New Democrats called for a tax on the excess profits of huge corporations to help make life more affordable, both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted no. The New Democrats believe we need solutions to deal with the cost-of-living crisis that actually support families and workers.

Cutting the price on pollution will not help Canadian families struggling with the cost of living. In fact, the vast majority of Canadians get more money back in rebates than they pay at the pumps. Those with the lowest incomes get the most back, so no, cutting the price on carbon will not help working people. It will only help big oil pad its bottom line and delay climate action.

With the increasing intensity of extreme weather, climate fires and floods, Canadians know we cannot afford to back down in our fight against the climate crisis. Report after report shows that having mitigation and adaptation now is far less expensive than paying for rebuilding infrastructure that has been destroyed or dealing with the aftermath of climate fires, flooding and hurricanes. More than that, it also saves people's lives.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Conservatives may not believe in fighting the climate crisis, but Canadians know better and expect their government to take action. While the New Democrats support a price on pollution, it is not a silver bullet. The Liberals have not been taking the action that matches the urgency or scale of the crisis we are facing, and they continue to let big polluters off the hook.

Carbon pricing must be fairer. The New Democrats would roll back loopholes the Liberals have given to the biggest polluters and make them pay their fair share. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals need to stop standing up for corporate interests and start standing up for working people.

We are calling for a tax on the excess profits of big oil to help make life more affordable while fighting the climate crisis. Big oil is benefiting while working families are hurting. Canadian oil and gas companies are forecast to rake in a record $147 billion this year. It is hard to even imagine what that number means. That is $147 billion just this year, but instead of investing these record profits in promised emissions reductions to clean up their own pollution or even investing to create good jobs for workers in clean energy, oil and gas companies are paying out huge dividends to their rich shareholders.

Amazingly, at the very same time, oil and gas CEOs are lining their pockets and delaying climate action. They have the audacity to tell the government they need more time and more subsidies to meet the Liberals' already weak climate targets. At a time when oil and gas companies are making more money than ever, it is unacceptable that they are not paying to clean up their own mess and are instead begging for more corporate handouts. However, it is not surprising, because the Liberals have been giving billions of dollars each year to these big oil and gas companies. This is nothing more than corporate greed.

The New Democrats have asked and will continue to push the Liberals to do something to take on this corporate greed, but both the Liberals and the Conservatives have said no. They said no to making CEOs pay what they owe. They said no to making sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share. They are fine with the ultrarich getting richer and richer while workers continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Solutions to deal with the rising cost of living should not put further burden on the shoulders of families. Big corporations and wealthy CEOs should not be getting away without paying their fair share. The New Democrats support putting a price on pollution, but the Liberals' carbon pricing system continues to let big polluters off the hook. Under their flawed system, Canada's biggest polluters pay the lowest carbon tax rate. Loopholes mean that oil and gas companies only pay a tiny fraction of the cost of their pollution, as 80% to 90% of their emissions are exempt. Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price. These loopholes need to be closed so that big oil pays what it owes for its pollution.

While a price on pollution is important, it is not nearly enough. The Liberals have continued to fail when it comes to meeting the urgency of this crisis. Instead of expecting the carbon tax to be a silver bullet, the Liberals need to make bold investments in clean energy, in energy-efficiency homes and buildings and in public transit. The Liberals need a real plan that supports workers and creates jobs in communities across Canada. They need to stop giving billions in subsidies to oil and gas companies, the same companies that are profiting off the backs of Canadians.

We need solutions to deal with the cost of living that actually support families, that help workers, that make life more affordable and that do not put further burden on the shoulders of families. The Conservatives believe people should be left to fend for themselves while billionaires reap the benefits. Then there are the Liberals, who are so far out of touch with the reality of working families that they need to be forced to act. When it comes to climate change, they like to say all the right things but then fail to do the right things.

We know the support that Canadians are getting right now is not enough. Families are still hurting while oil and gas companies are getting richer and richer. We will continue to call on the Liberals to put in place an excess profits tax on oil and gas companies to provide relief for struggling Canadians.

Last week, the UN Secretary-General called on countries to implement a windfall profits tax on fossil-fuel companies, saying, “Polluters must pay.” The Conservative government in the U.K. has already put a 25% windfall tax on oil and gas profits. The EU has announced plans for a tax on windfall profits. Spain, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria have all implemented a similar levy. It is shameful that the Liberals have so far refused to make big polluters pay their fair share.

Last week, the Minister of Environment appeared to change his tune, saying he is not against a windfall tax but that he is waiting on oil and gas companies to show their commitment to climate action. It is clear this is a fantasy being sold by the environment minister and the oil and gas lobby. A new report from The Pembina Institute shows that oil and gas companies are paying out huge dividends to their shareholders instead of investing in climate solutions.

While the Liberals and the Conservatives are more interested in helping corporations maximize their profits, the New Democrats will continue to fight for Canadians, workers and communities. We need climate action and we need it now.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. This is, obviously, a motion on combatting inflation. I would like to talk about housing, which is one very important aspect of combatting inflation.

For example, the government claims that Bill C‑31 will help the least fortunate households in Canada pay rent and that they will receive a one-time payment to help them pay rent.

Who could be against that? However, this measure is an attempt to make up for the lack of federal investments in housing over the past 30 years. If the federal government had been investing in housing over the past 30 years, there would be more housing units on the market and housing prices would not be this high. The government now wants to spend all kinds of money on this measure to make up for the lack of investment over 30 years.

Would it not have been better to invest that money in concrete and build homes to increase supply and make housing less expensive in the coming years?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question.

I would say that, absolutely, it is not enough. Five hundred dollars to support 1.8 million Canadians will help the lowest-income Canadians when they are struggling to pay their rent, which is important. However, we also need to be investing in social housing, non-profit housing and co-operative housing. It has been decades, and it was the Liberal government that cut the housing investments.

We used to build co-ops. We used to build housing. This is job creation, and it is providing decent housing. It is treating housing as homes rather than investments. The Liberal government is comfortable letting real estate investment corporations and wealthy investors run rampant in our housing market, which hurts communities and it hurts families.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about misinformation. To give the impression that the federal government is not supporting housing is just not true. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, for example, in the area of housing co-ops. We have had investments, and for the first time we are actually providing funds to encourage the housing co-op industry to grow as a whole.

My question to the member is more specific in regard to subsidies going to oil companies, and this is something that we have been working on. In fact, there is a commitment to end all oil subsidies by the end of 2023. We know that we cannot just click our heels and make them end, but there is a target to end them by 2023. Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to that?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we could ask anyone in my riding of Victoria or in Vancouver or Toronto whether the Liberals have been addressing the housing crisis, and they would say no.

However, on fossil fuel subsidies, there is a commitment to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, but I am extremely disappointed that the government refuses to end all fossil fuel subsidies. The government wants to continue to hand out billions of dollars to profitable oil and gas companies under the guise of carbon capture and storage, which means that it is handing over our taxpayer dollars to an unproven technology, one that the IPCC has said is actually years out. Instead of targeting it to companies that are doing the right thing and trying to take carbon out of the air, the government is actually giving it to oil and gas companies to use.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member brought up carbon capture and storage. I would be more than happy for the member to come to my riding, and I would give her a tour of what CCS does. It provides a tremendous amount of work, benefits and jobs throughout our very rural environment.

The member talked about capturing carbon out of the air, and that technology is just a mindset. It has not even been developed to see if it is effective. I am interested to know why the member would comment on something like that, without actually understanding what it is, and not recognize that, by capturing that carbon, it actually reduces the emissions, which in turn allows us to reduce the emissions on a carbon tax.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, report after report has shown that, currently, carbon capture, utilization and storage has resulted in more emissions than it has saved.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Show me the reports.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I can send the member the report. I would be happy to and—