Debates of Dec. 12th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment. I have knocked on doors and reached out to my constituents on this issue. To be frank, there is no other issue I have received this much correspondence on in such a short period of time.

I asked my constituents if they thought the government should comply with the will of Parliament and turn these documents over, and whether they thought, if any organization had received money illegitimately, it should return that money and potentially face criminal repercussions. Over 90% answered in the affirmative. I just wanted to put that on the record. This is something I am hearing all the time in my riding, and it is the biggest issue that I have received correspondence on at the local level.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I often hear from people who are retired union members, many of whom worked at places like GM in my local area, who supported the NDP their entire lives. Now they see what the party has become, and they have completely given up on it because they know we are the only ones fighting for any kind of transparency and accountability with the Liberal government. The NDP sold them out for Maseratis and has decided to put the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister above the people who have supported it for a long time. It is something I hear all the time.

People want fighters. They want people who will come to Ottawa to fight for them, and that is what is missing from every party in the House except the Conservative Party.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as the elected representative for North Okanagan—Shuswap. It is a riding that will no longer exist after the next election, but one that I have been honoured to serve for the past nine-plus years and will continue to serve until the next federal election day, when I hope to be elected to represent the new riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

I have met with incredible people in every community across North Okanagan—Shuswap, all with a passion for their community or their cause and all dedicated to making our communities the best they can be. As we approach the end of the fall session here in Parliament, I wish to take a few moments to thank public service sector employees, health care workers, first responders, small businesses, not-for-profit volunteers and especially those supporting and running local food banks and support organizations for all they do for our communities. Their support is critical, especially in these winter months, when housing and heating costs are higher, when local produce is not as readily available and food banks see extra need, and when greyer days can add to mental health challenges. I thank them for all they do, whether it is big or small, to support our communities. Together we are stronger.

I would like to remind everyone that sometimes all it takes is a call just to ask if someone is okay. It can make a world of difference in someone else's day and in their life. I hope everyone has a joyous end to 2024 and a bright vision and future for 2025.

I will turn now to the debate at hand. It is important that Canadians understand the magnitude of the matter that is at the root of this debate. That matter is the green slush fund scandal at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. For Canadians watching at home, I will break down the green slush fund scandal into four points. One, through its ever-increasing taxation, the NDP-Liberal government has extracted money from Canadians. Two, the Auditor General found that Liberal appointees gave 400 million tax dollars to their own companies, involving 186 conflicts of interest. Three, representatives elected in the House by Canadians told the NDP-Liberal government to provide the unredacted documents to the police so they could investigate the scandal. Four, the NDP-Liberal government continues to refuse to release the documents.

There we have it. The NDP-Liberal government took money from Canadians and gave the money to their buddies, and now they refuse to provide the documents of the scandal to the police because apparently the government has something to hide. The Speaker of this House, who operates like a referee in our proceedings, has even ruled that the NDP-Liberal cover-up violates the order made by the majority of MPs sent here by Canadians.

What does this latest scandal mean for Canadians? Rather than being focused on developing laws and policies supporting the lives of Canadians, the time of the House of Commons has been focused on trying to resolve the latest NDP-Liberal government scandal. I do not say this to diminish the importance of shining the light of truth to expose what lies beneath the government cover-up, because doing so in this matter is indeed essential.

Many Canadians will recall the Liberal sponsorship scandal and that two Auditor General reports and a public inquiry revealed that ad agency executives and Liberal Party officials had corruptly handled more than $300 million, $100 million of which was funnelled from the government to the Liberal Party. Nearly 20 years ago, the sponsorship scandal was exposed because Conservatives forced the matter and insisted on exposing the truth, and today, here we are again insisting on the truth being illuminated in the NDP-Liberal government green slush fund scandal.

For Canadians, the green slush fund scandal also means $400 million was wasted or stolen at a time when many Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. It means $400 million was wasted or stolen at a time when communities are struggling to deal with the housing crisis, the opioid epidemic and aging infrastructure that needs to be strengthened to withstand severe weather events and natural disasters.

Now, $400 million is a big figure. When I speak with, and receive emails and calls from, the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap, they are absolutely astonished by this massive amount of money that was misappropriated. They are astonished because there are so many ways that those funds could have been allocated to benefit citizens who earned these tax dollars in the first place.

The $400 million could have gone a long way in supporting local governments to increase climate adaptation of infrastructure to protect our communities from the effects of flooding. The $400 million could have helped prevent the destruction by natural disasters like the East Adams Lake and Bush Creek East wildfires that ravaged the North Shuswap in 2023. The $400 million could have gone a long way in capitalizing wildfire training and equipment. Instead, 1,200 residents in the Shuswap had to face the fiery infernos of 2023 and contend with rebuilding 176 destroyed homes and restoring another 50 homes.

A lingering, lethal threat of wildfires is the persistent threat of landslides. The $400 million could have supported assessments and actions to help the Shuswap with recovery in the short term and prevent more natural disasters in the long term, but the NDP-Liberal government chose to send $400 million to its friends through the green slush fund scandal.

No community in Canada has evaded the ongoing opioid crisis that has claimed over 47,000 lives since the Prime Minister ascended to power with his misguided policies. Conservatives have consistently pleaded for common-sense policies and federal resources for addictions treatment, but the NDP-Liberal government in Ottawa and the NDP government in Victoria have ignored common sense and subjected our communities and vulnerable citizens to dangerous hard-drug experiments.

As the House of Commons, and as representatives of all Canadians, we must guard against becoming unaffected by the lives lost every single day in communities of all sizes across our nation. We must resolve to learn from the failures of the Prime Minister and Premier Eby. The $400 million could have provided new addictions treatment capacities to save lives, but instead, these dollars were prioritized for the green slush fund, to be delivered to NDP-Liberal insiders.

There are also acute needs for increased mental health services in communities across Canada. These needs could have been served if the $400 million provided through the green slush fund had been directed to supporting expansions of mental health services in Canada. The COVID-19 pandemic, government lockdowns and social divisions stoked by the NDP-Liberal government took a toll on Canadians. Inflation and never-ending tax hikes have made life in Canada more expensive than it has ever been. This has taken, and continues to take, a toll on Canadians. While the NDP-Liberal government pats itself on the back for saddling generations of Canadians with unprecedented levels of public debt, Canadians see their standard of living being eroded.

Home ownership is a mere fantasy for most young adults in Canada. All these NDP-Liberal government policy outcomes are undermining mental health across our country. Let us imagine the mental health services that could have been expanded by the infusion of the $400 million that was sent to the NDP-Liberal insiders through the green slush fund. The ongoing NDP-Liberal government cover-up suggests the government is hiding the documents from the police for a reason. The government cannot explain why it blew $400 million in yet another scandal rather than making a positive difference for mental health services. Shame on the NDP-Liberal government.

The NDP-Liberal government talks a big game when it comes to the housing crisis, but it chose the green slush fund scandal over homes for Canadians. In order to accelerate construction of new homes, we need more Canadians certified in the skilled trades. This reality is not a new concept; it has been known for years.

Let us imagine how many Canadians could have been trained and certified in a skilled trade with the support of $400 million. We are talking about helping Canadians acquire the skill and certifications they need to help other Canadians. Who could oppose this common-sense approach? The NDP-Liberal government will talk the talk when it comes to building new homes, supporting workers and training for the trades, but the green slush fund scandal is proof positive that it will not walk the walk.

When given the choice between supporting skilled workers in Canada to build new homes and using the green slush fund scandal, it siphoned off $400 million for its buddies. The NDP-Liberal government chose that. Four hundred million dollars could have supported the training and certification of thousands of skilled workers in Canada, but instead, it chose the scandal.

Across Canada, there are people holding professional credentials from other countries, but they cannot perform the professional work they are trained in because their credentials are not recognized in Canada. There is a lot of professional training and talent that goes to waste every single day in Canada, including in professions and sectors that are desperately needing trained personnel.

Rather than developing creative ways of delivering hundreds of millions of dollars to insiders, why did the NDP-Liberal government not develop creative ways of unleashing this unused professional training? If foreign credentials and training have had parity with those in Canada, why are those credentials not recognized? If foreign credentials and training do not meet Canadian standards, why is the NDP-Liberal government not investing in a system for assessing and upgrading foreign credentials? Let us imagine all of the unrecognized professionals in Canada who could have been moved towards the profession of their training with the $400 million doled out by the green slush fund.

Water and waste-water treatment systems are essential for sustaining our communities and ensuring our waters are protected from untreated sewage. In 2012, the Harper government implemented Canada's first-ever national standards for waste-water treatment: the waste-water system effluent regulations.

As part of the implementation of the regulations, compliance deadlines were set for waste-water systems that did not meet the new standards. The deadlines were set up to allow time for municipalities to plan and budget funds to complete the upgrades and bring their waste-water systems up to the new standards.

Today, 12 years after the Harper government implemented the waste-water treatment standards, communities large and small across Canada have yet to achieve the standards. Why?

First, the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, pushed the compliance deadlines far down the road. This was done by the member for North Vancouver when he was the environment minister. Second, the government has failed to prioritize the support for upgrading waste-water treatment systems. The $400 million the NDP-Liberal government allocated to its pals through the green slush fund could have assisted local governments in advancing their waste-water treatment systems closer to compliance. We all know that this is not what the NDP-Liberal government chose to do.

In addition to representing North Okanagan—Shuswap, I am also honoured to serve as the official opposition's associate shadow minister for Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, recreational and west coast, and as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, FOPO.

My hon. colleagues at the FOPO committee, and each of the six fisheries ministers shuffled into the role by the Prime Minister, know I am a strong advocate for preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species, AIS, in Canada's waters. AIS pose acute threats to fish, wildlife and habitats, and acute threats to biodiversity. Over the past nine years, it has been concluded by FOPO members and witnesses that preventing the spread of AIS must be a priority because the cost of prevention is nothing compared to the permanent harms that AIS can inflict on ecologies, economies and communities.

Earlier this year, the government removed its funding from the B.C. government's invasive mussel defence program that inspects and treats watercraft, followed by cuts to AIS prevention and inspection stations along B.C.'s borders. I pressed the fisheries minister on this illogical and short-sighted funding cut, and she responded that zebra and quagga mussels are present across Canada. This statement was blatantly false and it was shocking; zebra and quagga mussels have not been located in Canada west of Manitoba, which is why we need to protect western waters through prevention.

Regardless, the minister cut funding to AIS prevention inspections in B.C. Just last week, it was reported that whirling disease, a parasite causing defects and death in salmonids, was detected in Kootenay Lake. I cannot help but wonder whether the spread of whirling disease in B.C. could have been prevented had the government prioritized AIS prevention. The $400 million in the green slush fund could have helped protect B.C.'s water from the invasive species and parasites that decimate fish populations and habitats, but the NDP-Liberal government chose otherwise.

As I close out my time today and as we approach the holiday season, I want to take a minute to thank some people. I want to thank the House administration staff who help ensure that we are able to do our job as parliamentarians. I thank the pages in the page program, who are an invaluable part of our daily activities here and conduct their role often in tandem with completing university courses here in Ottawa.

I thank the food service staff who prepare and serve our nutrition. I thank our office staff who spend long hours researching and preparing us for our daily activities. I especially thank our Parliamentary Protective Service personnel, who often stand on guard for us in the inclement weather we often see here in Ottawa.

Last, I thank our families, who give their unquestioning support and spend more time alone as we fulfill our duties here.

I wish everyone a merry Christmas, a blessed holiday season and health and happiness in the new year.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I first posed this question in question period on October 11, and surprisingly enough, I did not get a satisfactory response. By way of background, I was the only member of Parliament who obtained intervenor status in the National Energy Board hearings on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline. I think it is safe to say I am the only Canadian who read all of the so-called evidence submitted by Kinder Morgan. I am very familiar with this file, in other words.

I was shocked when we bought and then built the pipeline, at a waste of $34 billion, but through this whole thing, the City of Burnaby was consistent in saying it must not expand. Regarding the Burnaby tank farm, which consists of tanks of diluted bitumen and other fossil-fuel products that are highly flammable, the Burnaby Fire Department was consistent in saying it did not have the capacity to put out a tank farm fire. It also pointed out that for Simon Fraser University and various communities at the top of the mountain, there is only one road out in the event of fire. There is a significant risk to life and limb. In other words, the community of Burnaby had been, maybe one would say, a thorn in the side of this project.

To my horror, of course, the Government of Canada, as I mentioned, bought the project and built the project, and now all Canadians, all of us in this room, share in one thing if nothing else: We own the Trans Mountain pipeline. We have wasted all this money on it, and now, as we discovered the same week I asked the question on October 11, with our tax dollars at work, we have bribed the City of Burnaby to stop criticizing the pipeline and not mention anymore the risk of fire that would threaten the communities of Burnaby, particularly Simon Fraser University on Burnaby Mountain. What Trans Mountain did was offer $21 million over 20 years, and along with that came a gag order on the people of Burnaby not to criticize the pipeline anymore. They are not allowed to say anything about the Kinder Morgan, now Trans Mountain, pipeline.

It is astonishing that we would, as a federal government, pour $34 billion into violating indigenous rights and ignoring the various concerns for the environment about what would happen, or will happen because it is more of a certainty than a potential risk, if there were a spill of diluted bitumen, which behaves very differently in a marine environment than even the most horrible of crude oil spills, like Exxon Valdez. We also have the risk of a tank farm fire in Burnaby.

The answer I got from the Minister of Finance was certainly very generous and nice about my reputation as a climate activist, but it failed to answer the question: Did the government know about this? Did the federal cabinet understand that our Crown corporation, Trans Mountain, was prepared to put $21 million into stopping the people of Burnaby from being protected and their fire department from speaking out about this?

For those who are watching this, I ask them to go to Google and google this: “Only one bear in a hundred bites, but they don't come in order”. This is a very instructive video about the nature of tank farm fires around the world, produced by that old folk singer, my hero, Bob Bossin, who lives on Gabriola Island and knows whereof he speaks.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is no and no, but let me go on.

As the hon. member knows, Trans Mountain Corporation is governed by an independent board of directors and not directly by the government. The board has broad authority for corporate governance strategy and nominates several committees to oversee specific specialized areas. Trans Mountain Corporation operates as a commercial entity and has been clear that it is committed to meaningful engagement and effective relationships with communities all along the pipeline expansion corridor.

In October, TMC and the City of Burnaby shared a community contribution agreement that will benefit the residents of Burnaby through collaboration on an enhanced emergency response and safety plan. The details of this agreement include, as the hon. member said, Trans Mountain contributing $20.1 million to the city. Burnaby's mayor, Mike Hurley, said that he and any member of council are allowed to speak freely about this project and the contribution agreement itself. I know that those two parties worked closely to determine the details of this agreement.

Obviously, the government acquired the Trans Mountain Corporation and the Trans Mountain expansion project in 2018, because we knew it was a serious and necessary investment. The pipeline will continue to benefit our economy and Canadians, including those in communities like Burnaby, by providing good jobs, generating significant revenues each year and being an integral part of Canada's long-term energy infrastructure as Canada and the world transition to net zero.

To support this transition to net zero, since 2015, the federal government has committed over $160 billion to build Canada's clean economy and reduce emissions, and has invested significant additional resources to protect the environment and conserve nature. As the expansion project generates cash flow, the federal government will continue to invest in creating good-paying jobs and accelerating the development and deployment of clean energy and clean technology. The project has also created, and is continuing to create, economic benefits for families and many indigenous communities through contracting, financial compensation, and employment and training.

That is all I will have to say about that. However, just to repeat myself, I could have finished that in 20 seconds. The answer to the hon. member's question is no and no.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous to imagine that so many millions of dollars can be spent bribing a municipality not to protect its citizens, and no one in cabinet knows about it. However, that is what happens when we have what is called a “non-budgetary transaction” in which, magically, former finance minister Bill Morneau, without approval from anyone, decided that we have this value of $34 billion over here and we are going to convert it to a value of $34 billion over here in a project that is of dubious value and creates fewer jobs than if somebody locally opened a White Spot restaurant.

We have before us a scandal and a shame, and I am sorry for the hon. parliamentary secretary that he has now associated himself with it. He is not to blame, but the Government of Canada has done something egregious in doing something that Kinder Morgan had already decided was not a profitable project, and this can be proven, but not in the 30 seconds I have left. However, Canadians, as a people, paid for it, and I am afraid we will have to pay for it again in environmental damage.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said previously in my speech on those questions, there was a contribution agreement signed between the City of Burnaby and TMX. Those questions would be better asked of the City of Burnaby, but I would put my faith in the mayor. I would hope that he and council were assured that they can speak freely on this particular issue and that no gag orders were put on them.

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Will the government commit today to not raising the carbon tax over $170 a tonne, yes or no?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the smartest thing we have done in the last five years was to announce to the market that, yes, we would introduce a price on carbon at $170 per tonne by 2030. That sends a market signal. We could have hidden this fact, but all businesses in Canada know that this is coming, and it is smart policy. The market will react to that.

However, what we are still waiting for is the plan on environmental policy from the leader of the official opposition. I still do not know what he wants to do with the environment.

Carbon pricing is an important tool to reduce carbon emissions in Canada. It is an important tool to reduce carbon emissions in California. It is an important tool to reduce emissions in the U.S. It is true that the federal government has not imposed a carbon pricing scheme in the U.S., but many states have, which is something the Conservatives are a little shy of telling their constituents when they talk about a carbon pricing model.

I would add that it has been many hundreds of days since the leader of the official opposition was elected to be a leader. We are still waiting to see his environmental plan. Not having an environmental plan to protect Canadians and grow our economy is not serious. I will leave it at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer my question. I will ask it again. Will the government commit today to not raising the carbon tax over $170 a tonne, yes or no?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have already announced what we have committed to. The hon. member knows. I am not going to be a member of Parliament in 2030. I am not sure if he is still going to be here. I am not going to predict what is going to happen in 2030. If the member thinks that he is still going to be here and that he can predict what future governments will do in 2030, our commitment was $170 per tonne by 2030.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question from November 8 was on the doublespeak on the government's oil and gas production cut. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, at that point in time, responded by telling me that “[the] energy sector can increase its production while decreasing its emissions.”

I actually agree with that part, and I point to the decrease in carbon emissions per barrel demonstrated by Canada's oil and gas industry over the past two decades, through investments in technology and efficiencies. Canada's oil sands have decreased their CO2 emissions by over 32% over the past two decades.

What does the governing party think success actually looks like in this respect? In the world, our democratic allies asked, and are still asking, for more Canadian oil and gas. The parliamentary secretary told me, at that point in time, that countries around the world are looking to Canada for less polluting energies. I agree again. That is because we are delivering.

The parliamentary secretary then drifted into Liberal sound-bite fantasyland. He said, “Under the do-nothing approach of the previous Conservative government, Canada's imports of foreign oil were two times higher. It failed to promote Canadian energy.”

Did the doubling of production that we have had in this country over the last two decades just turn on magically, overnight, when the Liberals were elected? That is just wrong. Did the reduction in emissions per barrel just happen recently? Again, the data directly contradicts that. He then offered me a briefing on climate change. I know the member's depth on energy and climate change, and I guess I am a little surprised that the Liberal government had him read that statement. I recall that he had a tough time keeping a straight face. A golfer would say about the member for Niagara Centre that he is known to “fluff a putt”, but he will read whatever nonsense is put in front of him.

To the point, every credible organization has clearly stated that the cap would cost Canada around one million barrels per day of production, which would immediately be met with less environmentally responsible production from around the world, and 150,000 jobs would be lost. Billions of dollars of GDP would be lost, and there would be a sinking Canadian dollar, with higher deficits and Canadian poverty.

For the environmental result, let me refer to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development's words on the government's results. Two months ago he said, “The recent decreases to projected 2030 emissions were not due to climate actions taken by governments but were instead because of revisions to the data or methods used in modelling.”

This is all make-believe. All these experts that the government has been paying hundreds of millions of dollars to have accomplished nothing at the end of the day. It is about shutting down or about making it more onerous to produce oil in Canada versus every other jurisdiction in the world. Every other jurisdiction is prospering, while Canada is under the boot of the Liberal government to try to produce the resources for the benefit of the whole world.

Our emissions are going down. Our production is going up. We need to make sure that we can do more to continue on that path to provide a better environmental result for the world and a better economic result for all Canadians. I ask this to the member across the way again.

How in the world can they say that this production cap has anything to do with emissions?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to remind my hon. colleague that we are the only government to have built a pipeline to tidewater, something the previous Conservative governments and the oil and gas promoters on that side have never done. It is funny, because they laugh and scream, but they never were able to do it. We found the right formula. We understood that balance: the environment and the economy go hand in hand.

That is why the Government of Canada is putting a cap on greenhouse gas pollution from the oil and gas sector. That is a normal thing to do. Canada will be the first oil and gas producing country to do so. Our government published proposed regulations in November.

If the opposition members had their way, they would just let the sector pollute for free. We do not agree on this side of the House. They can challenge us on a policy, but they are still light on policy. All they have is five slogans. Until they showcase a policy, we can have an informed debate on this particular issue, but they still have nothing on the other side.

The greenhouse gas pollution cap will ensure that the sector invests in the maximum technically achievable decarbonization in order to achieve significant emissions reductions by 2030 and to get on a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050. This is good for consumers around the world. If we are able to get to net zero, Canada will be able to promote its oil and gas sector, because that is what consumers around the world are asking for. It is possible. Of course, if we use the technology of today it is not possible. However, we have full confidence that the people, and the sector, will be able to succeed in this challenge.

We have faith in the people and the industry to rise to this challenge. On this side of the House, we believe in technology, but we need to challenge the industry. That is why we have set this target.

Cap and trade is a proven market-based approach that has been used successfully around the world to reduce emissions. Quebec, California and Ontario at one point had a cap-and-trade system. Quebec and California still have a cap-and-trade system and their economies did not fall. They are doing very well.

Over time, the government gives out fewer allowances. To comply, facilities must reduce their emissions or buy allowances from other facilities that have reduced their emissions. I am explaining the cap-and-trade system, a mechanism that has been in place for a long time in Canada, especially in Quebec and Ontario, and California.

The government will continue to work closely with industry, provinces, territories, indigenous groups and other stakeholders to set a realistic, technically achievable goal for the sector. We want industries to use better technologies and improve efficiency. This will allow oil and gas producers to maintain or even grow production while lowering pollution.

On this side of the House, we believe a cap-and-trade system is the right system and we know the oil and gas sector in Alberta will continue to flourish.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my colleague across the way misunderstood my question, but we are talking about real metrics here, not hoped-for inventions that will come along in the next little while. This is six years down the road the Liberals are talking about with this cap, in 2030 versus 2024, and a million-barrel cut from what we are producing now, which is a significant part of the economy of Canada. Things pay the bills in this country and it is the oil and gas industry that is the biggest taxpayer across this country.

I am going to tell my colleague the response from people around the country to what is happening. His own Minister of Environment does not really seem to know much about the environment but is a well-placed mole for the NGOs that are in the environmental organization, making lots of money from what the government has put out. The minister actually said, “Look around the world, no other major oil and gas producer is doing what we’re doing.” Then a fund manager from Canada says, “‘Well, why is that?’ It’s economic idiocy.”

Does my colleague across the way understand and potentially agree with that?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, if we do not challenge any sector, then nothing will get done. I wonder if Freon would have disappeared in Canada when we had acid rain if Brian Mulroney had just sat on his hands and not worked with the U.S. administration to do something. They did something. They banned Freon. They put a price on CFCs because there was a rationale to do so.

Doing nothing means I have to tell my five-year-old son, “Sorry, son, I polluted your planet. I am going to hand over to you a tool that is barely half usable, but thank you so much and good luck with the rest.”

We have to do something for the environment and that is exactly what we are doing.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:13 p.m.)