Debates of March 21st, 2024

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Election

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I believe that member knows absolutely nothing about the history of this party, and he referred to quite a bit.

I have been a member of this party since I was 17 years old. I knew Brian Mulroney; he was a friend of mine. He is lying in state and in repose. That member made the most classless statement I have ever heard in the House, while a prime minister is lying in repose, to try to slag the party that he led to victory, my party, which I served in. From his statement, the member knows nothing about that government and has no respect for the former prime minister.

That party, my party, is the one that has defended Canadians more than any other. As a member of Parliament from Manitoba, why is he trying to mislead his constituents, saying that paying an average of $1,750 in carbon tax in Manitoba is less than the $1,200 they get back? Perhaps he has that same Liberal math inability and cannot add—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am so confident in every word I have said today that I would challenge that member, or any member of the Conservative Party who has a seat inside the House, to come to Winnipeg North and defend the policy position that the Conservative Party of Canada has adopted.

I give my most sincere condolences to Brian Mulroney's family: his wife Mila, his children and grandchildren. There are many Canadians, 80%-plus, who think very fondly of Brian Mulroney. It is not out of disrespect for Brian Mulroney. What I am talking about is the motion that we have before us today. Let us think about it. We can talk about the acid rain treaty, Ukraine independence or trade. The other night I even complimented—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have to get to other questions.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it feels a little like Groundhog Day in here. Again, we have another speech from the member, which is not unusual in this place, but it was just Tuesday that we had this exact same debate on a motion brought forward by the Conservatives.

This is starting to look, more and more, like a stunt, when the Conservatives continually use their opposition days to do the exact same thing, knowing what the exact same outcome will be. I do not know if they have seen the movie Groundhog Day. They may want to take some time to watch that.

Right now in Alberta, we have an unprecedented drought. The wildfire season in Alberta began in February. I do not trust the that government is doing what needs to be done on climate change, but perhaps the member could talk about the fact that the Conservatives have no climate change plan whatsoever.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point. When we look at the last couple of years, the Conservative Party has had approximately 20 opposition days on the issue of the price on pollution.

The member is right in her assertion. There are many issues facing Canada that would be well served by having opposition day discussions or debate. However, that is for the opposition to ultimately determine what they want as an agenda item. They continue to want to choose this issue. Whether we have that debate today or during the next federal election, when that takes place in good time, I look forward to it. I welcome that debate.

I hope Canadians will really get engaged on the whole issue of a price on pollution and the benefits of the rebates versus the tax. I believe there is a net gain for a vast majority of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Edmonton Strathcona for putting the notion of Groundhog Day in my mind. It really is Groundhog Day when the Conservative Party's slogan is lifted word for word, rhyme for rhyme, from the British Columbia New Democratic Party's slogan in the 2008 provincial campaign, when the B.C. New Democrats, under Carole James, ran against the carbon tax.

In fact, former premier Gordon Campbell, back in 2008, owed his re-election to the revenue-neutral, well-designed carbon tax brought into British Columbia by the relatively right-wing British Columbia Liberal Party.

Could we ever have a serious discussion in this place about the actual climate crisis, its galloping threat to our country and how the Liberal government might still, at this late date, put together a real plan?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I always find the leader of the Green Party to be a fountain of knowledge on the environment. She has a great history on it. My friend across the way paid a wonderful tribute to Brian Mulroney and highlighted how he was one of Canada's first powerful, well-spoken environmentalists.

She raises a point that does need to be emphasized. There is so much more we can do on the environment, whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures. I would like to think that over the last number of years, as a government, we have taken lead roles in both of those areas and have had a significant movement toward a healthier environment in Canada. We are demonstrating leadership around the world by some of the actions we have taken.

It would be nice to talk more about initiatives, some that we have done and maybe some that we could do.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the inflation rate in February was 2.8%, way below 3.1% expected by the private sector economists. It is much below the 8.2% that we saw in mid-2022. The grocery rate, food inflation, is 2.4%, way below the 3.4% in January, and well below the 11% that we saw in 2022 and 2023.

Could the member explain how this lowering inflation rate and the increase in the carbon rebate that low-income families are going get this year will help them cope with the rising cost of living?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, and the government as a whole, has been very clear. We want an economy that works for all Canadians. It is supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to become a part of it. Nothing has changed in that approach.

Day in, day out we work on economic policies that can lower inflation, which would include issues of affordability. We have rebate mechanisms, and the carbon rebate actually will help out. In fact, people will see that. Of the those four payments, the next one will come out on April 15, I believe. Many people start budgeting their monthly expenses based on those rebates.

There are other ways financially that the government has been there to support Canadians. We still have a lot more work to do, but we are committed to doing the hard work that is necessary to get the economy working better for all Canadians.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said that the cost was going to go up by less than a penny a gallon. He did not reference whether that was an American gallon, which is 3.785 litres, or whether it was a Canadian gallon, which is 4.54 litres. I will note that the increase translates to 3.3¢, which is less than either of those two numbers.

In a few moments, he is going to step into his lobby, interrupt his stream of, using his own language, bull, and members can fill in the blank that he puts into Hansard, and eat a lunch. That lunch will have been produced by folks on farms like mine that have received fertilizer inputs. It has been trucked here to the distribution centre.

Would he please enlighten the chamber as to how much of the carbon tax refund will be accounted for in his lunch?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was pumping gas at 11 years old, so it was a Canadian gallon. I believe my numbers are fairly accurate, and I appreciate the comment regarding that. I can assure the member that I had a wonderful breakfast, but I will probably miss lunch.

The point is that when we are looking at the price on pollution or the carbon tax, we are talking about a fraction of a percentage that has been attributed to it, whether it is Canada statistics or the Bank of Canada governor making that very clear. That is a false argument.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I would go as far as to say that it is a pleasure to talk about the carbon tax.

First, I would like to thank the Conservatives for having given us a break. Yesterday, we did not talk about the carbon tax. We talked about other things. Still, we had a day's respite. Since they had a day to talk about something else, we can see that they are beginning to diversify their intellectual assets and issues to debate. I would like to thank them.

Obviously, today we are debating a motion that is unacceptable, because it is dishonest and misleads the House. I am even surprised that this motion complies with the rules of the House. Not only does it suggest that the carbon tax will apply in Quebec, which is not the case, but it tells us that the increase will take place on April 1, whereas it is spread out over a number of years. The motion is simply dishonest and, above all, it is a motion that rejects Quebec. I will call on my past experience as an educator and do some teaching. I will ask the Conservatives to repeat the following after me. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Even when I say it slowly, they do not understand. We could not go any slower than that, but they still do not understand.

We voted many times to say that we had lost confidence in the government. We did so every time it was in Quebec’s interest. Since 2015, we have not voted in favour of any budget bill. We voted against the emergency measures when we thought they were contrary to Quebec’s interests. If the Conservatives wanted to move non-confidence, they could have found a whole host of unacceptable things that Quebeckers do not like. There is nothing in the motion about the absence of $6 billion in health transfers. There is nothing to protect Quebec when it comes to immigration powers. A government could be brought down over these issues.

There is nothing about returning Quebec's share of the federal cultural budgets. They want to shrink government, but they do not want to transfer power to Quebec. When it comes to infrastructure, municipalities could be allowed to make their own decisions without having to follow federal orders. The Conservatives have no interest at all in that. We could allow Quebec to implement its own environmental laws. The Conservatives want to shrink the federal government, but they want to maintain control. Someone needs to explain to me what kind of economic conservatism that is. What about Quebec’s right to withdraw from federal programs with full compensation? They want more government, but they are Conservative. There is the lifting of conditions on housing. There are tons of things the Conservatives could have put in their motion to satisfy Quebec, so that we could vote to show our lack of confidence in the government, but they decided to reject Quebec.

I have said this many times, but nothing has changed. The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the carbon tax applies to Quebec. It does not apply directly to Quebec. We have our own cap and trade system. It does not apply indirectly by regulation, because our clean fuel regulations are more restrictive. I explained it again to a Conservative from western Canada yesterday in the lobby. His eyes almost popped out of his head. He did not even know that. The carbon tax does not apply indirectly to Quebec because, according to the calculations of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada, the impact of the federal carbon tax on the price of goods in Quebec is in the thousandths of a percentage point. Now the Conservatives are telling us that, if there are variations in the price of emissions allowances in Quebec’s system, it is the federal government’s fault. The member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis helped implement Quebec’s system when she was a Liberal cabinet minister in Quebec.

The Conservatives did not make these statements in just any committee. The member for Lethbridge made a statement Tuesday in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In the newspapers in her riding, this member said that francophone artists from Quebec were a bunch of losers who could not achieve commercial success. The Conservative member for Lethbridge who said this was suddenly interested in the impact of the carbon tax on Quebec culture. She cares about the impact of the carbon tax on losers in Quebec. She said it was very serious.

Of course, there is a knight in shining armour on the committee, the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, who came to his colleague's rescue when he said that he would join the member for Lethbridge in explaining the collateral damage of the carbon tax on the arts community. I would like to tell the member for Drummond that he understands very well that Quebec chose the carbon exchange system adopted almost ten years ago, but because of pressure from a Liberal government.

Yet, it was the Harper government in Ottawa that was regulating clean fuels. It was the Harper government.

As we know, under Quebec's system, that is to say the system implemented by the Liberal member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, which I like to repeat because she was a Liberal in the Charest government, the number of permits traded is set in advance. It was determined by an order in council before the current government came to power. We know the number of permits that will be traded, even if there is a change of government. In addition, their price is increasing.

The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the federal carbon tax applies to Quebec. They must be at their 18th carbon tax. To hear them talk, that is all there is in the economy: carbon taxes. That is what they are trying to make us believe.

It is true, however, that the price of carbon has gone up in Quebec. The Conservatives blame this on “justinflation” yet, in Europe, the price of permits has increased from 20 euros to 100 euros since 2005, and they are planning to reduce the number of permits by 62% by 2030. “Justinflation” has an impact as far away as Europe? Everything is in everything—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he must not use the name of the Prime Minister in the House. He has done that twice now.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the Conservatives, everything is in everything. When it comes time to mislead Quebeckers and lie to them, everything is in everything. Is it the federal government's fault if the price of carbon went up in New Zealand and Switzerland?

That is what the Conservatives are trying to make Quebecers believe. Why? Because, according to the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, everything is in everything. One of Voltaire's characters, who is a favourite of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot with whom I will be sharing my time, Pangloss, was always trying to come up with causal connections. The Conservatives are making connections indiscriminately.

For these Conservative members from Quebec, everything is in everything. It is because of ice cream sales that more people drown in the summer. It is because Scarlett Johansson is in so many movies that the planet is heating up. It is because of the Internet that there are no more fish in the St. Lawrence estuary. That is their logic. The carbon tax and the price of carbon in Quebec went up at the same rate as Internet rates. Is there a connection? No, absolutely not. The Conservatives' attitude just shows that they will do anything for oil and that they will do anything to abandon Quebec and not do anything about Quebec's economy. That is why we want an independent Quebec.

Since 2017, the federal government has injected $1.75 billion into major industrial clusters to develop Canada's and Quebec's economy. Montreal got the artificial intelligence cluster. The federal government invested $1.75 billion across Canada, one-fifth of that going to Quebec, but is giving the oil companies $83 billion in aid over the next 10 years. We are giving up 237 potential Canadian Silicon Valleys to invest in oil. That is 237 industrial clusters.

At the same time, there is no national forestry policy for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and eastern and northern Quebec, and no aerospace policy for Mirabel, Longueuil and Dorval. We are still waiting for that. There is no policy on generic or patented drugs. We lost all that to Manitoba, because western Canada had to have its share of the clusters. There is no industrial cluster for automation in Drummondville, despite the fact that Quebec is a world leader. They are taking $83 billion of Quebec taxpayer money, one-fifth of which is paid by people who get a paycheque every two weeks from Quebec. We are paying for the oil. Do members know what they tell us then? They tell us that Quebeckers are getting equalization payments.

The reality today is that the Conservatives, by misleading Parliament, are telling us that they want to trigger an election about an issue that has nothing to do with Quebec. Parliament, being sovereign, will make its own decision. The day an election is called and we stand before our constituents, Bloc Québécois members will be proud to have been the adults in the House. We will be proud to be in the party that, every day we sat here, even if it was not easy, even if we were faced with disinformation, even if, on the ground, we were faced with the Conservatives’ institutionalized lying, had the courage to stand up to the Conservative Party and the other parties and to stick to the issues that will ensure Quebeckers a prosperous future. We will always be proud of that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will undoubtedly repeat the same thing as my colleague: everything is in everything.

Quebec has the carbon exchange, while the other provinces have the carbon tax. When the carbon tax in the other provinces exceeds Quebec’s carbon exchange, Quebec will either have to adjust the carbon exchange upward or agree to implement the carbon tax so that Quebec pays the same price. In recent years, the carbon exchange has been higher than the carbon tax, which means that Quebec paid more for a litre of gas. Now we are nearing equality, and soon the carbon tax in the other provinces will be more expensive than Quebec’s carbon exchange, which means Quebec will have to pay.

Does my colleague think that the Liberal government will impose the carbon tax on Quebec?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mirabel thinks that the member for Lévis—Lotbinière does not understand anything.

Quebec opted for a system that regulates the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted. We have a number of emission permits that decreases every year and ensures that, in 2035, regardless of the price of permits on the market, we will achieve our goal. That is why, whether the member believes it or not, the federal government did not ask Quebec to raise its price. Quebec does not control prices.

What the member for Lévis—Lotbinière is saying implies that the Government of Canda could tell California how to run its carbon market. I hope he realizes how ridiculous what he just said in the House is.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague put together his arguments very well and delivered his intervention very passionately, with probably a lot of assistance from the university he attended, which is the best university in Canada.

In all seriousness, what I hear a lot is misinformation coming from Conservatives that somehow the federal backstop is applied in Quebec, when in reality Quebec has been very progressive on pricing pollution through the cap and trade model, with California and other states in the United States. Unfortunately Ontario used to be a part but has now taken itself out of it. Quebec has been so progressive that the tax does not even apply to Quebec, yet day after day after day, Conservatives get up and say that it does.

Why does he think Conservatives are doing that? Does he think they are specifically trying to spread misinformation to Quebeckers?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives are exploiting people's distress in the face of a situation that has been difficult, inflation and a tough economic situation. I also think that the Conservatives from Quebec are kowtowing to their leader to get ministerial positions, and that involves compromising their values and principles.

Now, Quebeckers are benefiting from the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. Since Quebec has clean energy, we have fewer corporate polluters. We therefore have fewer requests for such allowances, which means that we are able to meet the targets that we set at a lower cost.

That is why the impact of the cap-and-trade system on Quebeckers' pockets is much smaller than what we would see in the western provinces, where there is a lot of pollution. Quebeckers decided to use their environmental sovereignty to set up an effective, functional program that benefits Quebec consumers, and we intend to keep that system.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel. His speeches are always passionate and informative.

I would like to add a comment. That same member from Lethbridge called me a dictator in the House just because I wanted to protect Quebec artists who are leading the way and deserve to be supported. Wanting to protect artists from Quebec does not make me a dictator.

I would like to come back to my colleague's question. How can disinformation have gone so far that Conservatives are voting against the agreement with Ukraine, saying that it will increase the carbon tax in Ukraine? That makes no sense.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of listening to the Conservatives say that they are for the free market and capitalism. When it comes time to help our media, suddenly we have to allow market forces to decide and let our media disappear. When it comes time to promote our culture and help us defend our artists, then we have to allow the free U.S. market decide and let our artists disappear. However, when it comes time to take billions and tens of billions of dollars of Quebeckers' money to pay for a pipeline, suddenly we need government intervention.

As we have heard here, there are Conservatives who, in Mulroney's day, participated in privatizing crown corporations within the Mulroney government. They are seated today and have never publicly come out against the fact that we give tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money toward pipelines. That is Conservative inconsistency.

If anyone wants me to start with the inconsistencies of the member for Lethbridge, or other members of that caucus, I am game. We could have a take-note debate about it one of these nights.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset and unequivocally that we do not have confidence in the Liberal government. My colleagues and I have no problem putting that on the record in this Parliament. That is why we have voted against the government on confidence votes, such as budgets and throne speeches, at almost every opportunity over the past few years. Today the Conservatives are calling for a confidence vote, but they did not just move a motion calling on Parliament to declare non-confidence in the government. The motion does not say simply that the House hast lost confidence in the government. Rather, the motion links that confidence to a specific issue.

What, then, could be the issue that warrants the House toppling the government and forcing Canada into an election? Is it immigration? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it the billions of dollars paid annually to oil companies, which continue to play fast and loose with the price at the pump? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it the nationalization of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost $34 billion to build, and which will mostly be paid for by taxpayers? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about outsourcing entire areas of government management to large corporations? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about challenging Quebec's secularism? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about eliminating Quebec's agricultural model? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about first nations issues? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about medical assistance in dying? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that. Is it about the national and constitutional issue? No, because the Conservatives agree with the Liberals on that.

We are witnessing the Ottawa coalition in all its glory. How ironic to hear the Leader of the Opposition saying earlier that the only difference between the Bloc and the Liberals is that they disagree on which city should be the capital. For one thing, that is utterly false. For another, we do agree that there is a pretty big difference between a capital where we make up less than one-quarter and a capital where we make up 100%. That right there is an irreconcilable difference, and the Conservatives are Liberals on that subject, too.

These issues are deeply important to Quebeckers, but the motion is not about these issues. The Conservatives say their motion is fully in tune with Quebeckers' interests, so what is it about? It is about a tax that does not apply in Quebec. The Conservatives' motion calls for an election that would serve as a de facto referendum on raising the carbon tax in the rest of Canada. In actual fact, not raising the carbon tax in the rest of Canada, or cancelling it altogether, could hurt Quebec. If the rest of Canada stops pricing pollution while Quebec continues to do so with its own system, the carbon exchange, households will be at a disadvantage. Let me remind everyone that the carbon exchange was set up by a Liberal government that included the current member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and it was hailed by the current member for Louis-Saint-Laurent while they were both MNAs. That makes sense.

Today, the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing a referendum election to push for a tax and climate injustice at the expense of Quebec’s competitiveness. At least it is clear. We can say that Quebec’s contract with Erin O’Toole is long gone. This also shows us just how insignificant the Quebec wing is within its party. In fact, I find it hard to believe that they themselves do not understand it. Almost all of them stood firmly behind the very Liberal Jean Charest, their leader and the father of the carbon exchange, so I cannot believe that they do not understand this. Even if the leader of the official opposition says today that Quebec is very important to him, we can clearly see that he does not even listen to his own members from Quebec.

There has been quite a scandal surrounding the matter of energy and energy prices, but the scandal is not the carbon tax. While ordinary citizens are struggling to make ends meet, some people are lining their pockets. While ordinary citizens are being hard hit by inflation, a tiny minority is making record profits. In recent years, the oil and gas extraction sector raked in record profits of $38 billion over three years, and half of that was made in 2022 alone.

This is hardly the inflationary reality facing the constituents of all members of the House. Since 70% of the shareholders of these companies are foreigners, that money is not even staying within Canada.

What is even more outrageous is the fact that the gift is doubled. Users pay at the pump, but since they are also taxpayers, they also send their taxes to Ottawa, which sends the revenues from those taxes to the ultra-rich so that they can continue to live the good life. It seems to me that they do not need any gifts given the record profits they have been making in recent years. I do not think they need them.

In the last two budgets, the federal government stated its intention to implement six tax credits for oil companies. According to the information provided by the Department of Finance, oil companies will receive a total of $83 billion by 2035. Is that the green transition in Ottawa? I am relying on the Department of Finance's numbers, but we all know that the government tends toward cost overruns in general. I do not think that it will cost any less than that in the end.

These oil and gas companies are the Conservatives' real friends, not the poor people who have to line up at food banks or struggle to find housing. Someone tell them to stop this nonsense. We do not believe them. We did not believe them before, and we believe them even less now.

If the Conservatives had moved a non-confidence motion to take a stand against the huge profits of oil and gas companies or end the big corporate welfare system funded at taxpayers' and users' expense, we would probably have come onboard. However, a motion like this one just makes me want to tell them to stop wasting our time.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, which certainly lacked subtlety. I just want to double-check one thing. I think my colleague is going to vote with the Liberals yet again to shore up a corrupt government that is costing Canadians a fortune and causing a host of problems.

Can my colleague simply tell the House whether he is going to vote with the Liberal government yet again?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we should make a note of the date. Today is March 21, 2024, and a Conservative has just told me that I lack subtlety. Now we have seen it all. That being said, we are also no strangers to surprises in Parliament.

I will simply respond by repeating what I have already said: We do not have confidence in this government. However, the Conservatives are talking about overthrowing a government and triggering an election over a motion based on a false premise that is an affront to Quebec. Given the current economic context, triggering an election on spurious grounds is extremely serious. As I said, we would have backed the Conservatives if their motion had included an issue that actually affects Quebeckers, especially if that issue were not rooted in a position that is harmful to Quebeckers.

I would like to hear the Conservatives truly denounce oil and gas company profits one day, because that is the real scandal.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked a lot about the handouts to big oil and gas. We just heard that the Trans Mountain pipeline is going to cost taxpayers $34 billion. That money could have gone into climate solutions.

We had the environment minister come to the environment committee, and I asked him if it was a mistake. He refused to answer. He said that the question should be for the finance minister. I told him that he was at the cabinet table and that he makes decisions with the government, yet he still refused to take accountability for the decision.

Could you talk about the lack of courage from the Liberals when it comes to taking on oil and gas?