Debates of June 1st, 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 nine petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Certificates of Nomination

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1 and subsection 75(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the appointment of Dr. Heather Lank as Parliamentary Librarian.

Pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I ask that the certificate of nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament.

Public Accounts

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “Public Accounts of Canada 2022”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I would like to thank all the witnesses who appeared, who included the comptroller and the Auditor General of Canada, among others, and I thank committee members and our team at public accounts for helping us put together this report.

Port Workers

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to table a petition on behalf of hundreds of workers at Canada's ports.

The petitioners note the essential nature of the roles of port workers in the operation of Canada's supply chain, the impact of decision-making at Canada's ports on their lives and, most importantly, the essential experience and knowledge they bring to the operation of Canada's ports. The petitioners call upon the government to amend the Canada Marine Act to ensure that port workers are represented on the boards of directors of Canada's port authorities.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the sixth time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

The common people of Swan River are demanding a common-sense solution to repeal the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled the scourge of crime throughout their community. Since 2015, violent crime has increased by 32%, and gang-related homicides have increased by 92% in Canada. What was once a safe rural community has now turned into a place where people fear leaving their homes.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and communities. I support the good people of Swan River.

Climate Change

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, petitioners from my riding are once again raising the issue of a just transition. This language is not divisive. It comes directly from the Paris Agreement. Canada and all countries on earth are committed to the just transition language that they have committed to.

The petitioners point out that the skills of oil and gas workers can be easily transitioned to jobs in renewable energy and that there should be an allocation of resources to support this work, which is essential and becoming more urgent by the day.

The undersigned petitioners call on the House of Commons to work alongside fossil fuel sector workers to create a plan that works for them and their communities, and to follow up on the 10 recommendations put forward by the task force on the just transition that was developed under former environment minister Catherine McKenna, a plan that involves commissioners going into every community where coal sector workers depend on coal for their livelihood. Those workers have been let down, as nothing has followed on from the significant efforts made by the task force on just transition for Canadian coal-power workers and communities.

Charitable Organizations

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning political discrimination in Canada.

The petitioners note that the Liberal Party, in its 2021 platform, promised to remove the charitable status of organizations that do not share the Prime Minister's views on matters of life. The petitioners ask the government to reject this proposal and to preserve the political neutrality of charitable status rules for hospitals, houses of worship, pregnancy and women's centres and many other important institutions across our country. In addition, this petition calls on the government to affirm Canada's freedom of expression, even and especially when it runs counter to the views of this government or any federal government.

Climate Change

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition calling on the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to enact just transition legislation that reduces emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030; winds down the fossil fuel industry and related infrastructure, ends fossil fuel subsidies and transitions to a decarbonized economy; creates new public economic institutions and expands public ownership of services and utilities across the economy; creates good, green jobs; protects and strengthens human rights and workers' rights, respects indigenous rights, sovereignty and knowledge, ensures migrant justice and emphasizes support for historically marginalized communities; expands the social safety net through new income supports, decarbonized public housing and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit; and pays for the transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest and corporations and financing through a public national bank.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table two petitions.

First, I would like to table a petition supporting Motion No. 1, a made-in-Canada green new deal. This is the first initiative before the House of Commons that calls on Canada to take bold and rapid action to adopt socially responsible climate action to tackle the climate emergency and worsening socio-economic and racial inequalities.

In this country, hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast have signed this petition. They outline that we are seeing a global climate emergency and many manifestations of that. They raise the issue of the floods and forest fires we are seeing, rising temperatures, killer heat waves such as the heat bomb that killed 600 people in my region about a year and a half ago, massive storms, sea level rise, and disruption to marine and land ecosystems.

The petitioners say that to avoid further catastrophic climate change, Canada has to meet the obligations we have under international agreements, with the ambition and urgency required. The impacts of the climate emergency are far more severe for those living through the immediate consequences, such as indigenous people, frontline and vulnerable communities and people seeking refugee status or asylum. These are all communities that are profoundly impacted, and as a result, they support my motion, Motion No. 1, a made-in-Canada green new deal, to tackle both social and economic inequalities and to have Canada meet its obligations by transitioning to a clean energy economy.

I also want to table a petition on the just transition, as my colleague from Vancouver East has just done.

The petitioners, again hundreds of Canadians from right across this country, are calling on the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that reduces emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels; ensures the end of the massive fossil fuel subsidies that Canada, the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government have invested in the fossil fuel sector; creates new public economic institutions and expands public ownership of services and utilities; creates good, green jobs and drives inclusive workforce development; protects and strengthens human rights and workers' rights and respects indigenous rights, sovereignty and knowledge by including indigenous peoples in creating and implementing this legislation; expands the social safety net through new income supports; and pays for the transition by increasing taxes on the wealthiest and corporations and financing through a public national bank.

We lose $30 billion a year through overseas tax havens. Closing those loopholes would go a long way to transitioning us and our economy in the right way to ensure that we are achieving climate justice on this planet.

Air Transportation

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to table yet another petition in regard to the growth of our Indo-Canadian community and the impact it is having. It is estimated that there are now well over 1.5 million people of Indo-Canadian heritage here.

The petitioners are asking for the federal government, airport authorities and international airlines, like Air Canada and WestJet, to ultimately look at enhancing routes going from Canada to India. With this particular petition, they are hoping to see an international flight that would go from Winnipeg to Amritsar, India. If this is not possible, the bottom line would be to increase the number of international flights. This goes beyond members of our Indo-Canadian heritage community, as more and more Canadians are travelling as tourists to India.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

moved:

That, given that,

(i) the first carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 41 cents to a litre of gas,

(ii) the second carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 20 cents to a litre of gas,

(iii) the combination of carbon tax one and carbon tax two will mean that Canadians pay an extra 61 cents for each litre of gas,

(iv) making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch this Liberal prime minister is,

(v) the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which they live,

the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two (the "Clean Fuel Regulations").

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

The Prime Minister lives in a parallel world, a world where fiction reigns supreme and reality is largely absent, a world where people just invent solutions to very real problems. In reality, these solutions sadly do nothing to solve those problems.

Imagine a meeting of the federal Liberal cabinet where each Liberal minister dreams of changing the world in their own way, but where each of those dreams unfortunately turns to a nightmare for the real world. That is exactly what we are experiencing in Canada with this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s good ideas are very costly for all hard-working Canadians.

Instead of adopting responsible fiscal behaviour that will reduce the cost of living, the Liberal government has passed an inflationary budget that increases the cost of everything for all Canadians. Instead of adopting a real plan to address climate change, what has the Prime Minister done? He went ahead with a tax plan that in no way changes emissions in Canada to actually address climate change. Instead of implementing common-sense policies that respect the situation of Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet each month, the Prime Minister chose to implement measures that make life even more difficult. Why? To satisfy his own conscience, by making those who are the very foundation of our country and our economy, our workers, pay for his “woke” policies.

Today’s motion is clear. Allow me to reread it because it is very important and this will have an impact and disastrous consequences for all Canadians and for Quebeckers, despite what those in the government and the NDP‑Liberal coalition will be claiming all day.

The motion states that the first carbon tax and the associated sales tax—because the carbon tax is taxable with the GST—“will add 41 cents to a litre of gas”. It also states that the second carbon tax, and the associated sales tax—the GST that will also be added to the second carbon tax—“will add 20 cents to a litre of gas”.

If we do the math, we see that, with those two taxes, Canadians will pay 61 cents more on a litre of gas because a tax will be added to a tax that will be added to a tax on another tax. That is a lot of taxes. When it comes time to pay at the pump, when Canadians use a debit card or, too often today unfortunately, a credit card to fill up, they realize it right away.

Above all, when Canadians have to make difficult choices like travelling less on their own or as a family for activities or leisure because they can no longer afford the fuel they need to get around, they are being deprived of their right to live. We never expected something like this to happen in Canada.

Let us return to the motion. It says that “making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis”, like the one we are currently experiencing, “by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch this Liberal prime minister is”. It also mentions that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and not the Conservatives, “confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which they live”. In Quebec, this new carbon tax will cost more than $400 per year, per family. What the motion is asking is that “the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one”. Why is it a failure?

According to a recent United Nations report, how did Canada rank among 63 countries, despite the carbon tax being imposed on Canadians?

If we listen to the Liberals, we would think that Canada's performance is very good and that this country is in the top 10. Looking at how deep the Liberal government will dig into Canadians' pockets, we might expect Canada to be among the best countries because it is costing everyone so much. However, Canada's actual ranking is 58th out of 63.

I will not go further on that topic, because my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has the study with him and he will talk about it in his speech, which is coming up next. I encourage everyone to listen carefully to his speech. Unfortunately, the Liberals want to make the middle class pay for their so-called fight against climate change that does absolutely nothing but deprive Canadians of the financial resources they need to make ends meet.

I will return to the motion, which proposes that “the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two”, the new tax that is about to be added.

It is not enough for the Liberals to cause so much suffering to so many families; they want to go even further with the clean fuel regulations. These regulations will be applied right across Canada, even in Quebec, and Quebeckers will have to pay more at the pump for the same tank of gas.

I think that that is enough. I had the opportunity to talk to many citizens in Mégantic—L'Érable who are at the end of their rope. I visited every food bank in my riding. They have all seen an increase in the number of people using their services. People no longer have enough money to live on, and the Liberal solution is to take even more from the pockets of Canadians. One in five Canadians goes without food because groceries are too expensive. In addition, nine out of 10 young Canadians no longer dream of becoming homeowners in this country because rents are too expensive and homes are unaffordable. The Liberal solution is to impose yet more taxes.

I already hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell us, as he does regularly, that we should know that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has a provincial cap-and-trade system. In Quebec, this system is less visible than a carbon tax.

I will quote from the report of the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It says that the “cap-and-trade system is less visible than a carbon tax because it because it involves creating a market mechanism for allocating the right to emit a certain amount of carbon in the form of allowances....Therefore, there is little information on the pass-through cost of prices within the system that affects both SMEs and consumers.”

Does that mean that they are not affected by carbon pricing? No, not at all. Quebeckers are still affected by carbon pricing with this mechanism. Also, if we increase the carbon tax in Canada, the cost of absolutely everything will increase. Guy Parent, who has been a trucker for 30 years, said that the automatic reaction of companies that pay the carbon tax is to “pass it on to customers”.

In this CFIB study, it is said that any increase in taxes will certainly have an impact on consumers because small businesses do not have the resources to absorb these increases. Now, Quebeckers are being asked to pay even more through a second carbon tax that will deprive them of even more of the income they need to make ends meet. As a result, more and more Quebeckers will need to turn to food banks.

Who are the victims of this ideology? Is the coalition planning to reduce greenhouse gases by making all Quebeckers poor? That would reduce consumption and therefore production, resulting in lower emissions. If that is indeed the plan, it is not the right way to go. Depriving Quebeckers and Canadians of the money they need to make ends meet serves no purpose. That is why I am asking all parliamentarians to support this motion.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, once again the Conservatives are masters of misinformation. The hon. member will know that the federal carbon price does not apply in Quebec.

To take a little trip down memory lane, in 2007, the Harper government proposed a $15-a-tonne carbon tax. In 2008, the Conservatives promised a cap and trade system, and in 2011, they abandoned this idea, and, for that matter, any other climate measure. During the 2021 election campaign, every person on that side of the aisle campaigned on a carbon price. What the heck is going on?

The Leader of the Opposition has been leader now for 263 days. Where is his climate plan, and when are the Conservatives going to stop flip-flopping?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 2029-30, the carbon tax will be $170 per tonne. That is the Liberal plan. Here is what the carbon tax has achieved so far: Absolutely no greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets have been met. According to the UN report that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent will be talking about, Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries.

I would like to remind my colleague that I said Quebec has a provincial cap-and-trade system. I made that absolutely clear. Quebec has a different carbon pricing system, but Quebeckers are still paying a carbon tax under another system, and the government wants to impose a new tax that will cost families an extra $436 per year.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I wish the Conservative Party would stop with the populism. They have been shouting at us for almost a year, for example, that the government has been in power for eight years, when it will actually be eight years in October. Of course, if they say it enough times, it will eventually be true.

Today, all sorts of things are being said. Puns are being made with the Prime Minister's first name. All day, we hear talk about “common sense”. A person can claim that something is “common sense” all day long, but it has to be put into practice all year long.

Would my colleague not agree that people can show “common sense” but still take moderate measures to ease the impact of the carbon tax, the way that Bill C‑234 does?

I am quite proud of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We reached a reasonable comprise to help people through the transition. Does my colleague acknowledge this? This is my first question.

My second question is: What will the Conservative Party do to address climate change? When will it realize that climate change exists? There are wildfires burning now.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, right now as we speak, Canada is experiencing major climatic shifts. The Atlantic provinces have seen flooding and forest fires. Quebec is seeing more and more forest fires. What impact has the carbon tax had in preventing these events? None.

The Department of Finance estimates that between the years 2019-20 and 2022-23, the federal government accumulated $21.2 billion in revenues from carbon pricing. Of this money, SMEs received only $35 million in assistance, or compensation, as my colleague put it.

That is preposterous. This is not a plan to fight climate change; it is a plan to tax Canadians.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to read a brief passage to my friend from Mégantic—L'Érable. It states:

We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline (and other liquid fuels) we burn, turning them into a true Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Our improvements will include:

Basing our Low Carbon Fuel Standard on British Columbia’s policy to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon intensity for transport fuels....

That is from the 2021 Conservative election platform, a platform that my friend from Mégantic—L'Érable ran under. Now the member is saying the exact opposite, and I am wondering if somehow we can harness this Conservative policy weather vane as a source of renewable energy. What are his thoughts?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, just a few months ago, the leader of the NDP was praising the special rapporteur, saying that the government had made the right decision in appointing a special rapporteur to investigate foreign interference. Yesterday, the NDP leader called for his dismissal, so I will take no lessons from the NDP, considering all of their flip-flops.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate that affects all families, particularly following such an eloquent speech by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Climate change is real. Humans played a role in creating climate change and so humans have a role to play in reducing its effects. The government is proposing a tax to reduce the impact of climate change. That is not the path that we are taking.

As we speak, we know that 1.5 million Canadians used food banks this month. One in five families will skip a meal this week because they do not have enough money in their pockets.

Inflation is the highest it has been in 40 years. That is the daily reality of Canadian families. The government is saying that, in order to provide direct assistance to Canadian families who are struggling because they do not have enough money in their pockets and have to skip meals, it has to impose a new tax. The government has to create a new tax and take even more money out of people's pockets.

For years, Canadians who have been saving have noticed that, under the Liberal government, the price of housing has doubled, the cost of borrowing to buy a house has doubled and the down payment required to buy a house has doubled. All of that has happened in the eight years that the Liberal government has been in power.

Families are having a hard time. The government's brilliant idea for helping Canadians is to create a new tax, the Liberal carbon tax 2.0. The Liberals think that the issue of climate change can be solved by taxing Canadians, but we believe that that is not the answer, especially in inflationary times.

Let us get one thing straight. The system in Quebec is different from those in other provinces. Quebec has a carbon exchange. One thing that everyone seems to forget in this debate, especially the Liberals and the NDP, is that, in passing the act that created the Liberal carbon tax, the federal government gave itself the right to impose a price on carbon in all of the provinces, regardless of whether or not they had a carbon exchange. The federal government was the only one that knew how much more this would cost. The Liberal federal government wants to impose its philosophy on everyone. It is unfortunate to see people who call themselves nationalists agreeing with the invasive approach taken by the Liberal government, aided and abetted by its pal, the NDP.

For eight years, the Liberal government has been in power. For eight years, the government has been lecturing the entire planet. “Canada is back”: That is what the Prime Minister was so proud to say in Paris in 2015.

Canada is way back; it is really way back. In the last eight years, the government has failed to reach any goals, except one during the COVID tragedy. If the government's plan is to shut down the economy in Canada to achieve its goal, I do not think this is the right way to go, and it is certainly not the one we will follow.

This government talks a good game but never follows through. Need I remind members that the Minister of Environment, the founder of Equiterre, is now being personally sued because, according to the document filed with the Federal Court on May 6, 2022, the government talks a lot, but fails to react or take any concrete actions?

The Conservatives are not the only ones who can see that the government's track record on climate change is mediocre. The United Nations sees it too. Last November in Egypt, which is a strange place to hold a conference on climate change, but that is the venue the organizers chose, the United Nations tabled a report on the performance of the 63 most important countries in the world for fighting climate change. “Canada is back”, he said eight years ago.

What did the UN think? It ranked Canada 58th out of 63 countries when it comes to climate change. That is what the report says, and that number is not all.

Let us look at another table. How does Canada rank among the 63 countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? It ranks 57th. That is not bad. It moved up a rung. “Canada is back”, indeed—way back.

Now let us talk about renewable energy. How is Canada doing after eight years of Liberal government? It ranks 52nd out of 63, yet it is telling the whole world what to do.

In terms of energy consumption, we are not doing at all well. Canada ranks 63rd out of 63. Canada certainly is back, at the back of the pack. It could not go any lower, since only 63 countries were evaluated. The upshot is that Canada, which loves to lecture everyone else, ranks 58th out of 63. We are not the ones saying that. It comes straight from the UN, yet the Liberals want to tell us what to do.

As I said earlier, pollution is real and must be reduced. Everyone has to work together to reduce pollution. The Liberal approach of imposing a Liberal tax on carbon is not the right way to do that, much less when this tax is doubled. For Canadian families, that means $573 more. For Quebec families, it is $436 more. This is in addition to the carbon exchange that exists in Quebec. As my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable said, according to the report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, there is an effect, but it is difficult to pinpoint the price exactly because it is the business that must absorb the costs.

The second Liberal carbon tax will have a direct impact, in that families will need to pay $436 more.

Why does the Liberal carbon tax not work?

If every country in the world had a carbon tax pegged at the same level, we could look closely at that, but this is not the case. I would remind members that, geographically speaking, we have a rather imposing neighbour to the south. There are 40 million Canadians compared with more than 300 million Americans. The U.S. is our next-door neighbour and our most significant financial partner, but it is also our greatest competitor. Our economies are interconnected, and we are proud of that, we are privileged, but we still have to participate on equal terms and get the same results everywhere, so that we can then conquer the world. The carbon tax does not exist in the President Biden's United States.

I was very proud to welcome the President of the United States here. He was just a few feet away from me. There is no denying that it was exciting. He has taken a leading role in the global fight against climate change, yet he does not impose a tax in his own country. Why should we Canadians have one, when our main neighbour, main partner and main competitor does not have one? Perhaps it is because the United States knows it is a risky move to go after American families directly.

That is not to mention the fact that our country generates 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, whereas the United States generates 14%. We also know that China is responsible for one-third of the world's pollution and that India produces an enormous amount of pollution. Many emerging countries are increasing their environmental impact because their economies are doing better. We must keep that in mind.

The last time I checked, pollution travels. I have never seen a CO2 molecule travelling with a passport. Pollution knows no borders. If other places in the world do not have the same measures as we do in Canada, then we are just undermining our economy without obtaining the tangible results we are trying to achieve.

We believe that we need to take specific concrete action to reduce pollution with tax incentives for investing in the high-tech sector, that we need to give the green light to green energies, that we need to be proud of our Canadian expertise in exporting around the world, particularly to emerging countries, and that we must do all of this with the support and co-operation of the first nations. Those are the four pillars that will help us to combat climate change. That is what we need to do, rather than taxing Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.

First, he spoke about the American approach. It is true that the Americans have not put a price on carbon, except in California. They prefer subsidies. In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act contains $329 billion in subsidies. Would my hon. colleague prefer that we spend more to achieve our goals?

Second, he claims to be a nationalist, but all of Quebec's governments—the CAQ government as well as previous Liberal and PQ governments—have advocated for a price on carbon. Why are the Conservatives diametrically opposed to Quebec's policies?

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

Madam Speaker, Quebec has never supported the idea of Ottawa imposing a price on carbon. This centralizing, overreaching Liberal government is imposing a major change on the provinces. Ottawa knows what the price is, but the provinces do not. This is a direct attack on the provinces' responsibilities.

I want to say one thing about everything that is being done. The companies are the ones polluting, and they know how and why they are polluting. They are also the ones who know how to reduce pollution. It is not up to Ottawa to tell them how to do it, especially not by increasing their taxes.

They should instead be given tax incentives so that they can directly reduce pollution in a concrete and real way. It is everyone's duty to reduce pollution, but it is not Ottawa's job to tell them how to do it, on top of imposing a tax. No, it is up to businesses to do it, with tax incentives. Giving tax incentives does not mean giving subsidies as the current government is doing.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, there are some fallacies in the objectives of this proposal.

At the same time, we can acknowledge that some people are struggling with inflation. I just finished a visit where I met with seniors. There is definitely cause to ask the federal government to do more for the most vulnerable. However, continuing to rely on oil and hydrocarbons to contribute to socio-economic conditions seems to be exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

Why is my colleague stuck on the idea of denying climate change and continuing to increase its effects by promoting oil and gas?

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

Madam Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: Climate change is real and we need to address it. The member from the Bloc Québécois is very proud of Quebec, I am sure. I am too. However, in the past year, the Quebec nation consumed 18 billion litres of oil. It is not me saying that, it is the Hautes Études Commerciales school of business, or HEC.

That is the reality for Quebec families. Quebeckers still need oil, just like everyone else around the world. If we suddenly no longer needed it, that would be one thing, but that is not the case. Quebec needs 18 billion litres of oil. Does the member really want us to cut Quebec off from all oil? I do not think so.