Debates of Nov. 8th, 2023

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Public Accounts

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Tuesday, February 14, be concurred in.

To start, I want to say that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Before I begin, I want to mention that this week is the birthday of the member's predecessor, the wonderful Kevin Sorenson. It was his 65th birthday.

Since Mr. Sorenson and I used to fly together a lot, I had the pleasure of enjoying a birthday with Kevin one night. We were flying back to Edmonton, we landed and we went to our cars. I got into an Uber to go home and Kevin went to pick up his car from the outdoor lot. It turned out that, although it was a brand new car, it would not start. He thought, “crap, it is my birthday”, and so he went back to the airport to rent a car. He handed over his credit card and driver's licence, but it turned out his licence had expired about five minutes earlier, because we were five minutes in. So, poor Kevin, not only on his birthday did he have to spend it with me on a plane, but his car would not start, he could not get a rental car and he had to catch a cab all the way home to Battle River—Crowfoot.

I am pleased to be talking today regarding the study in question. Actually, Kevin, at the time I first started doing some work on public accounts, was the chair of the committee. However, the greening government report that we are chatting about today is actually perfect timing for a lot of reasons, and I will comment on some of the timing as I go. One of the reasons this is great timing is because in public accounts we are actually studying the green hydro sham. I call it a sham, because there are various issues that come up about the government's actions, and I will cover them later in my talk.

On the greening government report, I will give a couple of points to give some background.

Treasury Board launched the greening government strategy back in 2017 with the ultimate goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. I will comment from the Auditor General's report, which says that “The Government of Canada has indicated that it is committed to leading by example in both the domestic and global transition to a low‑carbon economy.” Again, I get back to the great timing, because we just heard from the environment commissioner commenting that the government has not once yet achieved a single one of its environmental goals. Yet, we have here the public accounts committee looking at a report stating that the government's goal was to be a domestic and global leader and transition to a lower-carbon economy, but failed.

It is an interesting comment from the Auditor General that said that the federal government is responsible for 3% of all GHG emissions, which is larger than any single corporation or company in Canada. One would think that this government would actually work to reduce its own GHG emissions instead of driving out of business so many companies across Canada. Instead, we see its goal is to reduce GHG by eliminating revenue-producing companies, especially in Alberta, but at the same time growing its own emissions.

From the findings of this report, the Auditor General comments that “5 years into the strategy, the [Treasury Board] secretariat’s efforts to reduce emissions were not as complete as they could have been—especially considering...[their statement that they were going to be a] global leader in transitioning”. So here we have the Auditor General pointing out that the government is all talk and no action on this issue.

Further into the report there is the comment, “We found that the overall reported results from Crown corporations were neither included on the secretariat’s website nor aggregated”. Why is this important? Again, I talked about timing and the government. Treasury Board does not cover Crown corporations.

We, of course, have the green scam going on right now with the SDTC where we have a $1-billion Liberal green slush fund and where we know millions have been diverted to companies without any oversight. Here we have the Auditor General herself commenting that the Treasury Board has provided no oversight on these programs with Crown corporations.

The Auditor General continues to argue that the Treasury Board Secretariat of the government also left an important context out of its reporting, such as “an overview of...government's key sources of emissions”; “key activities undertaken by the secretariat”; “opportunities, risks, and related mitigation measures likely to affect the government’s ability to implement the strategy over the remaining 28 years”; and “information about how the strategy supported the United Nations 2030 Agenda.”

Liberals did not know what they were doing, they did not know what they were going to achieve, they did not know how they were going to achieve it and they did not know when they were going to achieve it. That pretty much sums up the government in a lot of areas, but especially on the green front.

The Auditor General also concluded, “we found that the Greening Government Strategy did not contain sufficient detail about some important commitments. Additional information would give parliamentarians and Canadians a clearer picture of what is to be accomplished, including the government’s plans [how] to transition”. It is very clear that throughout this report it says there was a lack of transparency in the government's reporting.

Then the Auditor General finished up commenting on limited risk management. This is important because at this time in the ethics committee and others, we are talking about the $1-billion slush fund, with no oversight and no risk of management on the government's programs for spending. She stated, “We also found that the secretariat did not identify how it would consult departments on their risks in order to come up with a more comprehensive, accurate list of these.... We found that only 8 of 27 departments had created emission reduction plans for...” government programs, and that was all.

I want to talk about the SDTC. It is important because the Auditor General has made it clear that Treasury Board, which is responsible for oversight, has not provided oversight. It failed on the oversight of Crown corporations, which the SDTC is, and did not provide risk management or risk mitigation.

There is a comment in the SDTC mission statement that says their “investments translate to economic and environmental benefits.” We heard earlier that the environment commissioner stated the Liberals have not achieved one target in their environmental plans. I have to disagree. The Liberals have achieved one plan, and that is stuffing taxpayers' money into connected Liberals' pockets through the SDTC. We have looked up donations from the directors of the SDTC. Tens of thousands of dollars have flown into the Liberal government's coffers and, at the same time, millions are going out the door that are unaccounted for.

The SDTC also said, “We help Canadian companies develop and deploy sustainable technologies by delivering critical funding”.

The SDTC mission statement further stated, “committed to full transparency”. That is very similar to the government saying “open by default”. Both are not true. We have had to fight in committee to get information.

I will read a couple of comments from the whistle-blower on the SDTC about some of the money that was wasted, “There's a lot of sloppiness and laziness. There is some outright incompetence and, you know, the situation is just kind of untenable at this point.” It seems very similar to the $54-million ArriveCAN scandal, but I think this is going to be much larger.

The whistle-blower went on to say, “The minister is going to flip out when he hears the stuff and he's going to want an extreme reaction, like shut it all down.” I will note that the minister found out in March and here we are in November before we have seen some action by the government. “It's unlikely that certain members of the board”, we will remember the board that funnelled tens of thousands of donations into the Liberal coffers, “or the entire board, and executives are going to be able to continue to serve. Like they've kind of lost the confidence. So really, the discussion will be the mechanisms for getting them out.” It continues, “...pretty well prepared to talk him off the ledge. Like minister, '[That's a] bad idea, we've got other ideas'.”

We have the Auditor General's report on the greening government strategy very clearly laying out problems. Back in 2022, a year ago, we knew there were problems with Crown corporations. In March, whistle-blowers came forward about the waste of taxpayers' money. Now it is November and we still have not seen action. It is very clear that Canadians cannot afford the costly government after eight years and, after eight years, it is very clear the environment cannot afford the government either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member was aware that, according to today's agenda, we were supposed to be debating Bill S-9, which deals with the chemical weapons convention and updating that legislation. It was brought in through the Senate. My understanding was that there would be unanimous consent for getting this bill passed.

I wonder if the member could explain why the Conservatives chose to play games today, games that will ultimately prevent Bill S-9 from being introduced. This means that Canadians will have to wait once again because of the filibustering methods of the Conservative Party. How does the member justify filibustering important legislation?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question I would ask of the member is how he justifies the continuing cover-up of this slush fund. At committee, we tried to get this information. The Liberal government and its Bloc allies voted against requiring documents related to the Liberals' green slush fund to be released at committee.

He talks about games. I would like his party to end the game of this cover-up and release the information to Canadians, Canadians who are suffering across the country, coast to coast, with paying their bills, paying their rent and affording food. They are struggling, and the government continues to cover up. That is at least $40 million of taxpayers' money wasted.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the timing of this report is rather odd. I would like to ask my Conservative colleague if that was intentional.

The Conservatives have led the charge, which the Bloc Québécois and the NDP support, to get to the bottom of public funds being used or misused in a green fund that was created by the government. We are dealing with an independent group, but we see that the use of funds is not optimal.

Is there an order to follow when we question the use of these funds? The purpose of these funds is to invest more in our green economy, which is a good thing, but if, at the end of the day, the money is not going to the right place, we can ask questions about that.

Is the member's goal to highlight that today?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague is saying. The money is not being used as it was intended. Whether someone is for one type of ideology or the other, we do have very clear rules about our spending. We have clear rules about how the Treasury Board should react and what rules they should follow.

It is very clear from the greening government report from the Auditor General that the government is not following the rules. In fact, eight out of 27 of the government's departments refused to hand over documents backing up its emission reduction claims. That is how much confidence the government has in its propaganda. It was only eight out of 27, so 75% of the departments refused to hand over information to the Auditor General to back up the government's claims.

Canadians do not believe the government is committed to helping the environment. I think it is only committed to helping its propaganda points.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous Parliament, the member for Edmonton West and I did a lot of work on what was at that time called vote 40, which had all the appearances of a Liberal slush fund. We did some good work together to hold them to account for that.

We do not hear this as much in the chamber anymore, but at that time it was common to hear the phrase “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. I wonder if the member for Edmonton West remembers who it was who would so often utter that phrase and what that would mean in this case.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do miss my colleague on OGGO. I enjoyed working with my NDP colleague from Vancouver Island. We certainly miss his interventions.

It was, of course, the Liberals who talked about sunshine being the best disinfectant. A commitment to transparency is actually in the mission statement of this green slush fund. We have the government saying that openness is the default. We would like to see them follow through on that.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Today, I was attempting to vote and was not able to because of technical difficulties. I am still on the line with the technical department. I would like unanimous consent for my vote to be registered as yes for the last vote, which was for Bill S-242.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Small Business; the hon. member for Victoria, Climate Change; and the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to debate issues that are so important to Canadians.

I would thank my hon. colleague from the West Edmonton Mall constituency. He did bring up my predecessor, who I remember very fondly, having worked with and volunteered on his campaigns in my home constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot, which was then called Crowfoot.

I would like to give a big shout-out to Kevin Sorenson, who was chair of the public accounts committee during the 42nd Parliament. It was his birthday the other day. I will not tell the House how old he is, but I wish Kevin a happy birthday. I know he was able to enjoy some time with his grandkids.

Here we are again talking about government corruption. It has become something that I hear about regularly as a Conservative MP. It has truly disillusioned so many in our country on whether or not they can trust the government. Increasingly, across the country, north, south, east, west and everywhere in between, we hear that Canadians simply cannot trust the government. This is so concerning because it is one thing to disagree with the government, its policies and its ideology, but increasingly, because of the last eight years, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have decreased their trust.

There has been a significant erosion in the trust Canadians have in our general institutions. That is so problematic because it transcends politics. It transcends any particular party. The damage that has been done to this country by the Prime Minister and the Liberals has truly created a circumstance where there are more people all the time who are saying that they simply do not believe our country can continue to function as is.

As a parliamentarian, as somebody who believes so very much in the future of our country, somebody who is proud to represent the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot, it is so unfortunate and distressing that all the MPs in the Liberal caucus, the NDP caucus and the Bloc caucus prop the Prime Minister up.

Here we are today debating another motion. The committee brought forward a report that speaks to some of this corruption. It truly emphasizes the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, made, which is that everything in Canada feels broken. That is certainly the case when it comes to the cover-up that seems to be taking place with respect to the whistle-blower revelations from SDTC.

There is a report that the minister requested to be done on some of these documents. At the ethics committee, we asked for this document. We had Liberal members, along with members of the Bloc and NDP, who said that they would ask nicely. Although I, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and other Conservatives made the case that it is past the time to ask nicely because the Liberal government refuses to be honest and allow for the truth to get out. We have a report before us that is heavily redacted. While Conservatives brought forward a motion that would have demanded those answers, it was the other political parties of this place that joined together to allow the cover-up to continue.

We have delegations and whistle-blowers who came forward because they were distressed about how there were millions of dollars and words being thrown about, saying that this could make the sponsorship scandal seem small. There is a level of corruption and connections with Liberal insiders that is truly astounding, and this contributes to that further erosion of trust. It is to the point where I am increasingly hearing from constituents and folks across our country that they find it difficult to keep track of the number of scandals the Prime Minister has found himself embroiled in. This is increasingly making it a challenge for the government to administer, and that trust is being broken with Canadians. There are millions of dollars disappearing in a way that has become commonplace. Also, and this cannot be lost in the midst of this, it has reduced the trust that any Canadian has in the government being able to accomplish its objectives.

Now, we can agree or disagree with what the objective is, but one should be able to trust that the government would work toward fulfilling it. The proof of this is so very clear with that government's own environment commissioner's report, which was released earlier this week. We see that the Liberals are failing to meet their targets, yet they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, on things where money is being skimmed off the top. It leads one to that conclusion.

The insiders seem to be the ones who get these lucrative contracts, where $38 million and a billion-dollar green slush fund evaporates. While whistle-blowers are saying it as loud as they can, releasing, publicly, some of this information. We have members of the House, in every other political party, covering up that corruption.

This cannot be lost on the environment commissioner. Not only is there corruption but the corruption is leading to the government not being able to accomplish anything.

The carbon tax is not leading to emissions reductions. The fact is that we have a whole host of green programs, more than I could name, probably, in a 10-minute speech, that are not leading to the promised emissions reductions.

I will quote the report from the public accounts committee we are debating today because I think it is quite something. These are not my words, but it states:

Parliamentarians and, more importantly, taxpayers must have complete confidence in and oversight over the federal governments long-term strategy to achieve Net-Zero or the current plan should be scrapped in its entirety. Through their own admission, neither department studied in this report could accurately state Net-Zero was possible...

We see that, by the government's own admissions, it is now realizing that they cannot accomplish their objectives. We have a corrupt Prime Minister and a corrupt government being propped up by a host of either willing participants or those who are blind and are showing an unbelievable level of cowardice to the corruption that is being perpetuated within our country, which is contributing to that erosion of trust taking place in our government.

This is not simply Conservatives saying this. Recently, in a study at the access to information and ethics committee, which I am proud to be a part of, we studied the idea and issues surrounding government access to information.

The Prime Minister divides at every turn for his own political gain, whether it is premiers from coast to coast uniting against the carbon tax, as an example, or when it comes to unanimous agreement, and this was very important, that the access to information system was broken. Every witness who came to committee agreed that the access to information system in Canada was broken, with one exception. The former president of the treasury board was the only one, the only witness, who came to testify before the ethics committee who said there was not a problem.

It is that wilful blindness, that ignorance and that intentionality that are leading to a culture of secrecy, a culture of corruption, that needs to be addressed. Canadians have zero confidence in the government's ability to accomplish its objectives. Canadians have zero trust in the Liberal government's ability to administer, with integrity, the public purse.

Increasingly, I am hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are ready for a change, for somebody to bring common sense back to this country, so that when they pay taxes, when tax time comes, they can trust the fact that, while the government takes, they can trust that it is being administered properly because that has been destroyed by those Liberals.

It is time to bring home some common sense to our country. It is time to bring back some integrity to our government. The only way that this would happens would be when the member for Carleton, after what will be a carbon tax election, can take the Prime Minister's chair and bring back, bring home, common sense to this nation and restore trust in our governmental institutions to truly bring back the Canadian advantage, which has been lost under those Liberals and that Prime Minister.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been talking about trust quite a bit in his remarks. I am just curious why he thinks the Canadian people could trust the party opposite when we know the kinds of reckless ideas that they are putting forward, such as crypto, misogynistic hashtags, photos with illegal protesters, legislation that is trying to use backdoor methods to open up debate on a woman's right to choose, and all the other things that Canadians are very concerned about.

I just do not understand how the member could accuse this side of a lack of trust, when that party has been so reckless and is doing things which are of great risk to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is so very interesting is that the member seems either to be wilfully ignorant of the corruption or to be complicit in it, maybe benefiting from it, because the member, along with her caucus colleagues, is refusing to allow sunlight to shine in order to ensure that Canadians can get answers for where the money is going and who is getting rich.

The member needs to look back over the last eight year at funds, at the SDTC, which has turned into a scandal that whistle-blowers are saying is bigger than the sponsorship scandal; at a carbon tax that is failing to meet its objective; and at a government that is truly seeing an erosion of trust in the very foundations of things that we, in this country, used to be able to take for granted.

The member should look closely at her government and her caucus colleagues, and ask why they are contributing to a culture of corruption, a culture of secrecy that is destroying the very foundation for the government that we should all be able to trust in this country.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1742 and 1743, and the revised responses to Question No. 1738, originally tabled on November 6, 2023, and Questions Nos. 1745 and 1744.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech.

To summarize it briefly, he said that the money needs to go to the right place and that we need to manage the money better here, in terms of the public finances and so on.

There is one thing that I know. Right now, today, oil companies are making $200 billion in profit. Then, the Conservatives are telling us that it costs a lot to heat a home, that the price of gas is rising, that the cost of every fossil fuel is skyrocketing, and that all of these things are hard for taxpayers.

If the oil companies are making $200 billion in profit and the Canadian government continues to provide them with $83 billion in subsidies from now until 2035, can my colleague tell me whether he is actually serious when he asks where the money is going?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is an interesting one. I would simply mention that Alberta contributes approximately $13 billion into the equalization formula, which is very complex, admittedly, but it is about $13 billion, and Quebec receives about $13 billion from it.

Alberta has been clear that it will unleash its potential. Alberta is a world leader in producing clean, green resources, whether that is new tech and clean tech, or whether that is the traditional forms of energy like LNG, natural gas and oil.

I find it so unfortunate that members like that would push our people into energy poverty as opposed to allowing our country and our people to prosper. When it comes to prosperity in this country, the Bloc Québécois members should look at themselves in the mirror and ask why they are keeping our people in poverty.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their excellent presentations on the issue this afternoon. My colleague from Edmonton was talking about how only eight of the 27 targets the government had set were met in this, and I will ask our colleague from Alberta to expand. I wonder whether the member can just expand on his thoughts on why, if the government had such a great plan, it was such a failure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite something. As we look through this report, we see how failure defines the government's strategy when it comes to the environment, when it comes to public finance and when it comes to every metric. It is so unbelievably irresponsible of the members, especially the backbench of those three political parties, to continue to prop up the corrupt coalition when Canadians truly deserve better. That is what they will get when the member for Carleton becomes Prime Minister and Conservatives form a strong mandate to get our country back on track.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is nothing new. Here we are on another day of the legislative session when the government is attempting to get legislation through, legislation that really matters to Canadians, and once again we are witnessing the Conservative Party, in a determined way, wanting to prevent government legislation of all forms from being able to pass.

I am going to get into that shortly, but before I do, I want to recognize the significance of the legislation members are prepared to debate here. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs was chatting with me just prior, regarding Bill S-9, which is legislation that has come through the Senate. It was very well received, and it appeared that it would be passing through. From what I understand, everyone is supporting Bill S-9. It is not going to have a problem even getting through the Senate.

Bill S-9 is about amending the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. The convention has 190 parties that have signed onto it, and it updates the list of chemicals. It is relatively uncontroversial yet very important legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs was saying to me that he was anticipating that the legislation would pass with all-party support.

There is a sense of disappointment. There is no reason we could not have debated it and allowed the debate to come forward. I do not know, and I guess we would have to ask the parliamentary library or someone to find out, the number of times now that the Conservative Party has brought in a concurrence report during government business in order to prevent government legislation from being debated. This is an ongoing destructive force that the Conservative Party wants to use. Today, the Conservatives brought up a report dealing with the environment. We have been talking a lot about the environment in the last few days. I have a lot of thoughts I would like to share with members about the environment. We had two opposition days, both of which were dealing with the environment.

Today was supposed to be a government day when we would be dealing with the chemical weapons convention, but the Conservatives want to talk about a report. When they started talking about the report, what were they emphasizing? It was not necessarily the report itself. There is a lot of latitude given, just like the Speaker gave me latitude to be able to express my thoughts, but what they were more concerned about was incorporating the word “corrupt” as much as they could and trying to portray something that is just not there. They try to create a false narrative on this issue, like a million other issues, because they have been engaging in character assassination since before the Prime Minister was even the Prime Minister. In this case, they are trying to make the Prime Minister look bad in the eyes of Canadians, and they are using this particular report to try to amplify that.

They are also talking about transparency and accountability. I was in the position of being in a third party on the opposition benches when the current Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party. One of the very first actions that he took was around the issue of proactive disclosure, indicating that we wanted to be able to share in a very transparent way that ensured accountability for how individual members of Parliament were spending money. When the government of Stephen Harper and the official opposition at the time opposed it, the leader of the Liberal Party, today's Prime Minister, imposed it on the Liberal caucus members.

Virtually from day one, since becoming the leader of the party, not to mention the Prime Minister of Canada, the leader has been a strong advocate for accountability and transparency. I can say to go back and read some of the S. O. 31s and look at some of the actions that were taken back then. We can fast-forward to virtually day one, when we took power back in 2015; what members will find is that the Conservative Party, in particular, was more focused on trying to make Canadians feel bad about the personalities within the government. That is my nice way of saying that the Conservatives' focus was on character assassination. Nothing has changed. For eight years, I have witnessed that first-hand.

Today, not only do the Conservatives want to filibuster legislation, but they also want to continue the line of anything and everything that they can point a finger at and say it is corrupt, bad and so forth. If they can factor in character assassination, they do.

In terms of the environment and what the government has been able to accomplish, I should probably go over the last couple of days. Maybe a couple of weeks back, the Conservative Party members brought up the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We will see the relevance of that here, because the Conservative Party of Canada opposes the Canada Infrastructure Bank. When the Conservatives talk about the environment and look at this report they say it is a slush fund. That is the way the Conservative Party looks at it. The Conservatives are saying that if they were in government, they would get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

They can look at the results and the things that are coming out of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I think a progressive, and I underline the word “progressive”, Conservative government would have been very supportive of today's Canada Infrastructure Bank. However, that is not the case with the far-right, reckless and risky Conservative Party. Some people laughed when a question was posed today in question period referring to the Conservative Party and, in particular, the leader of the Conservative Party being a junior Donald Trump. The idea is that the Conservative Party today is so far to the right that the members of the party do not even recognize good public policy.

When I had talked about the Infrastructure Bank, I talked about bringing back the Homer Simpson award that I used to give out when I was an MLA, a number of years back, for dumb ideas. We can think about the Conservatives' position on the Infrastructure Bank and its impact on Canadians, the economy and our environment. Someone told me it was actually 48 projects, but I know it is at least 46 projects, with $9.7 billion being supported through the government. Through that, there is close to an additional $20 billion, because of other sources of funding.

There are transit projects, in the double-digits, out there. Gas buses are being converted into electric buses. I know that my colleague from Brampton North, a very strong advocate for the entire community of Brampton, is a big fan of the electrification of public transit. Through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we are now seeing that conversion taking place.

It is better for the environment. Ultimately, there would be cost savings on that. That is one of the biggest investments we are seeing from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. That is not to mention school buses in different regions of the country that are also being converted into electric school buses.

We talk a lot about rural Internet. In fact, earlier today we had a vote on spectrum. The Conservative Party was talking about rural Internet connectivity. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is investing in Manitoba fibre Internet. That is going to benefit rural Manitoba, and that is not the only fibre it is actually investing in.

It is supporting our communities, yet the Conservative Party would say that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a boondoggle or a slush fund. These are the actual words that Conservatives use to describe it. One member across the aisle is heckling that it is a waste of money.

The Conservative Party of today does not appreciate, nor does it value, the role that government can play in ensuring that we have a cleaner, healthier, stronger environment.

[An hon. member]

No vision.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no vision, as my colleague says.

We see that in another policy related to the environment, something that we have been talking a great deal about, the price on pollution, or as Conservatives love to call it, the carbon tax.

It is interesting that every political party inside this Chamber actually supports the price on pollution except for the Conservative Party. In fairness, in the last federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada supported the price on pollution. However, this new leader has decided that the Conservatives no longer want to acknowledge climate change. Progressive measures, such as the price on pollution or the carbon tax, are a big no-no for Conservatives.

What they do not realize is that the carbon tax that is actually paid goes back to the provinces and to the people. It is the most cost-efficient way for the public as a whole to get engaged in having a cleaner and healthier environment. In fact, a majority of the residents in Winnipeg North actually benefit from the price on pollution, or the carbon tax. That is not me saying it: The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer makes it very clear. Eighty per cent of my constituents would get more than they actually pay in.

When the leader of the Conservative Party goes around the country saying that he is going to axe the tax, referring to the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, he is really saying that 80% of the constituents I represent would have a net loss of actual dollars in pocket. However, the Conservatives do not talk about that.

That is the reality. That is the truth.

I will tell colleagues that, when they look at the report that was provided, the government and minister have provided a detailed response to the six or seven recommendations. We can look at the actions we have taken as a government to demonstrate strong, national leadership on the environment; most recently, we can look at the oil debate and the price on home heating oil.

As I said yesterday, there was a day when a lot of people were heating their homes using coal. A lot of those wartime houses had little steel plates where they shovelled the coal in. This was not done any more as people modernized. Nowadays it is more of the natural gas, electricity, oil and propane. Those are the things heating homes. Despite the Conservatives' attempts to mislead Canadians, the government came up with a national program that would encourage people to convert from using oil for heating to heat pumps across Canada. They will say, no, it is happening in one region. There are federal dollars actually being spent.

When they talk about how the federal government is spending money on the environment and how we are looking for net zero, this is a policy platform that is going to help us get there. The Conservatives say that only a few hundred have actually been converted over the last number of years. That is false information again. We are talking about tens of thousands of homes today that have taken advantage of government programs to convert to using home heating pumps.

There is no problem in terms of talking about the issue that the members have brought forward on this particular concurrence report. The real tragedy we are talking about today is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not believe that it has to behave in a responsible fashion on the floor of this chamber. Conservatives continuously bring in concurrence report after concurrence report, with some sort of a lame excuse that cannot be justified. I would challenge any of them to go to a university in Winnipeg or Ottawa with me, go to an intro poli sci class or something of that nature, and defend their irresponsible behaviour in trying to filibuster all types of legislation.

They do not want to have a vote on the Ukraine trade deal. What do they do? They bring in concurrence reports. They do not allow it to come to debate. They talk about foreign interference. We bring in legislation that deals with international investment, and they bring in concurrence reports. They do not want to debate. Then they will go crying to the media that the Liberals are bringing in time allocation. Well, duh. We cannot pass anything with the Conservative Party unless we bring in time allocation. Conservatives made a point of making that a reality today. They did not want the legislation to pass the House of Commons.

In a minority government, there is a responsibility that the official opposition has too. I see it as part of my job to hold the Conservatives accountable for their behaviour, which is absolutely irresponsible. They prevent legislation that supports Canadians, whether through pandemic situations, supporting a Ukraine trade agreement or the legislation today, which was supposed to be on the chemical weapons convention. The Conservative Party wants to take this reckless, risky way of dealing with all those issues to the floor of the House.

I say shame on the Conservatives. They have an obligation to Canadians, and they are not living up to it.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been plenty of legislation that Conservatives have agreed with and voted for. There were bills on disabilities, child care and extending COVID support payments. If it is good legislation, we will vote for it. In fact, the Liberals have legislation they still have not brought back to the House, such as Bill C-56, which Conservatives have indicated they would support.

Canadians were told that Liberals could not cut or pause the carbon tax for any Canadians because of fires, floods and hurricanes, and I want to know how any member in the Liberal Party sleeps at night. How does the member sleep at night knowing that they paused the carbon tax on heating oil when just six months ago, they said they could not pause anything because of hurricanes, floods and fires?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any problem sleeping at night. The greatest frustration I have is entering the House of Commons each day trying to figure out what game the Conservative Party is going to play in order to prevent legislation from passing. I am never disappointed because this is how they behave. It could be a motion for concurrence on a report. I have seen members of the Conservative Party move that someone else be heard and then cause the bells to ring so they do not have to debate legislation. I have seen Conservatives move to adjourn the House. I have seen the Conservatives deny the House sitting past six o'clock because they do not want to sit until midnight as they do not think Canadians want their MPs to do that. These are all behaviours we see from the Conservatives because they do not really want legislation to pass.

Yes, if they can be shamed in certain situations, we are able to get some bills through, but it is, in good part, because of shaming them and time allocation.