Debates of June 17th, 2024

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I think there could be a lot more decorum, and people should not be taking the floor unless they are recognized by the Speaker. The hon. member had asked a question. The other hon. member was responding.

The hon. member for Nunavut has the floor.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know the member talked about the importance of the military in other places, and I appreciate that. He might appreciate my question about how much more investment needs to be made for Canadians so that they can participate in Arctic sovereignty and Arctic security. Does the member agree that, for example, investing in Canadian Rangers would be much better for keeping Canada secure?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows my mother was born in Chesterfield Inlet and raised in Pangnirtung, so I have a lot of connections to the Arctic. I really do firmly believe that the Canadian Armed Forces have a major role to play in expansion of the Canadian Rangers to make sure that they are better financed, as well as able to do a greater job in carrying out exercises to establish our control and sovereignty over the entire Arctic.

We also know that we could be making more investments in dual-purpose infrastructure for both the Canadian Armed Forces and local populations. That is everything from runways to ports and from telecommunications to broadband. We need to do more of that to make sure that those collaborations will work for all Canadians, especially those in the high Arctic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on the defence file. On defence, could he comment on the fact that the Liberals are saying they are going to increase the amount of expenditure over the next five years, but they are actually cutting back this year? It is as though they are putting everything down the road and saying they are really increasing, but they are actually decreasing. I know the forces are suffering because of this.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The Liberals are cutting $2.7 billion from the budget over the next three years. That is having an impact, and we are starting to see it in the issues around readiness and training. We are now deploying our troops to the NATO enhanced forward position in Latvia that we are running, and they are not taking their pretraining before they go and deploy. That predeployment training is critical to being able to make sure that we are the leaders in the theatre of NATO allies that are also stationed at the same base in Latvia. When we go over there and have them play catch-up, again, it is a national embarrassment. Therefore, we need to make sure that we are making the investments that are required. A case in point is that one of the first things the Liberals cut was uniforms for women in the Canadian Armed Forces; they did not think these uniforms were necessary. It is a shame.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of the great people of Red Deer—Mountain View. I plan on speaking to some of the issues that are important to the families and the businesses in my riding, particularly housing; agriculture; food supply; global issues, such as energy and food security; and, of course, debt financing.

Food and shelter have long been considered some of the bare necessities for human beings to survive, yet these two critical needs to sustain the health and well-being of Canadians have been and continue to be put at risk by the NDP-Liberal government's reckless handling of governmental affairs. While it upsets me greatly that we are unable to have amicable, maybe even friendly discussions about these issues and how the government fails to address them in the budget implementation act, we just do not have this luxury. It is necessary to be blunt.

We, as parliamentarians, ought not to have that luxury when this past spring saw the percentage of first-time users of food banks rise sharply to 61%, compared with 43% last fall, according to the Salvation Army's Canadian poverty and socio-economic analysis. We should not have the luxury to sit around and act as if the current government's handling of these challenges has been sufficient when, according to the Grain Growers of Canada, Canada's national voice for grain farmers, the average grain farm will pay 30% more after the capital gains tax changes. As well, we should not have any luxury to tolerate the continued endangerment and mortgaging of Canadian lives as our nation continues to face a drought of family doctors and our government continues to erect barriers for health care providers.

The budget implementation act fails to address these three concerns and, frankly, many more. It is bizarre that we as a government can, on the one hand, muse about the struggles everyday Canadians face in being able to afford to eat and, on the other, pass legislation that would effectively make it harder for Canadian farmers to grow food for us domestically.

Here is a scenario that might resonate with a typical grocery shopper. We all know how the price of fruit works. As fruit goes out of season, the price increases because of how difficult it is to source supply. It is a question of supply, not necessarily a question of demand, as I am sure cherries and peaches are popular fruits for most.

Other foods that are also universally popular and never a question of demand are meats and grains, which are essential to a healthy diet for people around the world. While inflation has, without a doubt, played a significant role in the cost of food and groceries, we must look to pull on the lever of domestic supply in our fight against this cost of living crisis. However, this lever has continued to be neglected and ignored by our current government.

We have a carbon tax that, without a doubt, penalizes our farmers for working hard to feed Canadians. According to the Grain Farmers of Ontario, it is estimated that up to $2.7 billion of carbon tax will be paid by Ontario grains and oilseeds farmers by 2030. Most grain farms are family owned. I have already mentioned how the average grain farm will be forced to pay nearly 30% more in taxes as a result of the proposed capital gains tax changes. These, of course, were removed from the current budget implementation act for what could only be described as political purposes.

I myself am a fourth-generation farmer, and I can wholeheartedly say that this proposed change would target the retirement plans of farmers, make it more difficult for farms to change hands between generations and threaten the security and long-term viability of family farms across this country. We will need more farmers here in Canada if we are to have any hope of combatting the cost of food for everyday Canadians.

RBC found that, by 2033, 40% of Canadian farm operators will retire; however, 66% of producers do not have a succession plan in place. Certainly, what is happening now is not making it any easier. Our farmers, and those who grow our food, are in need of certainty about their futures, not more penalties on their hard work or more uncertainty about their retirement.

When we challenge our farmers, who are an essential component of what makes up the backbone of this country, with more taxes and uncertainty, it does not bode well for the future of domestic food production and agriculture in this country. Once again, this budget fails to respond to these growing challenges and leaves much to be desired.

This budget fails Canadians by missing the mark entirely in addressing food security here in Canada. I say this because I know that many will cite worldwide disruptions of supply chains and global trade. They will point to the invasion of Ukraine and the conflicts of the Middle East, but for years I have been involved as part of Canada's delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, and I am very aware of the current situation there, along with the consequences on global food supply.

The OSCE deals not only with food security, but also energy security and, of course, the discussion about security within the continent of Europe. Even after saying these things and affirming statements of how food insecurity is a global issue, I want to remind us all here today that to act as if things in Canada are all right and that agriculture in Canada is not impacted by global affairs is reckless and short-sighted behaviour. In fact, it is unfortunate that I have to point this out, but this behaviour has become par for the course after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government.

When our allies face an energy crisis and are in need of alternate sources of oil and natural gas, they can count on us for words of affirmation and emotional appeals of support, but when they come to ask for our own oil and natural gas, both of which we have an abundance of, the answer has been that there is “no business case”. When farmers and food growers here in Canada are allowed to do more of what they do best, which is to provide us with the means to feed both ourselves and the world, we not only help ourselves, but also help our allies in need. We cannot responsibly prioritize helping others when we cannot help ourselves.

Canadians want to help their neighbours. Canadians want to be known as the breadbasket for our allies, but only if they are in a position where they must not choose between that and feeding their families or keeping a roof over their heads. Canada stands ready to work hard and to be rewarded. Canadians do not need more government tools. They need fewer government barriers. A food production renaissance in this country would fundamentally shift our approach to tackling the cost of living crisis we face after 12 years of reckless, unabated government spending.

Whether one is a banker on Bay Street, a construction worker maintaining critical infrastructure, a police officer protecting our streets or a nurse coming off a 12-hour night shift, we are all Canadians, and we all need to eat. Empowering our farmers by removing unfair and unjust penalties and continuing to support community initiatives, such as 4-H Canada, would nurture our next generation of food growers and prioritize common sense over ideology. That is what we need to get this country back on track so that young students are able to focus on studying for their next quiz instead of having to worry about what to eat.

I cannot in good conscience support this budget implementation act knowing that there is so much this budget fails to address. The $61 billion in new spending is not the answer we need to bring down inflation and lower interest rates. Canada will have to spend $54.1 billion to service our national debt, which is more than we are currently sending to provinces for health care. Instead of printing more money to help Canadians scrape by, we need to start producing more of what that money buys.

Under a future Conservative government, we would axe the tax on farmers, build more homes for families to eat their suppers in, fix the budget to allocate modern supports for those who grow our food and stop the crime against hard-working Canadians, who want nothing more than to raise responsible citizens and make Canada the greatest place to live on earth.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a great respect for the fine work that our farmers do day in and day out, 365 days a year. Let there be no doubt about that, whether they are addressing the needs created in drought situations or promoting trade.

Earlier this year, I was with the Minister of Agriculture when we opened up one of the greatest economic opportunities for the future of agri-foods by opening up an office in Manila, a trade office for 40 Asian countries. I wonder if the member would recognize that we not only have budget measures to support farmers but also other initiatives. Does the member support the Indo-Pacific Agriculture and Agri-Food Office opening in Manila?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been on the international trade committee for a number of years, and I have had opportunities to go around the world to see just how well thought of Canada is in the trading world. The fact that the government continues to deal with some of those things and keep that going can be appreciated because it is important that we continue to do the great work that was done by the Conservatives when we were last in power. It is so critical. In agriculture, it really becomes one of the most important parts because, yes, we grow a lot of grain, but if we are going to be successful, we have to make sure that it gets to world markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting Red Deer once because my son was working there.

My colleague mentioned that grain and wheat crops are important in his region, but the same can be said of the oil industry too.

I imagine that my colleague agrees that we need to stand up and fight climate change. With that in mind, what measures does he think should be included in a budget to ensure a just transition?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member that oil is important, but it is not just important in my province. It is important for Canada and for the world since we are able to produce this oil and gas most efficiently and with the least emissions around the world. The drops of oil and molecules of natural gas should be moved, and we should be finding markets for them because we will continue to need them. It does not matter if we are going to be putting in windmills, solar panels or geothermal. All of those types of operations for renewables require a massive amount of hydrocarbons to build them. We need the rare earth minerals to put them together.

We have this concept that says we will ignore how all of these other sources of energy come to be, and we will just talk about the fact that there seems to be a pretty good whipping boy in Canada to go after oil and gas. The last drop of oil and gas in this earth should come out of Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I know the member thinks there are not enough investments for farmers. Whatever he thinks there is for farmers, there is far less for hunters in the north. We know that the rates of poverty are much higher in the Arctic.

I wonder if the member agrees that, whatever investments are made for farmers, there must be comparable investments for hunters so they can provide for their families, communities and Canadians as well.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is critical because harvesting, whether it comes off of land where we grow or the animals on the earth as part of tradition or just that we need to eat, is important. When the government talks about agriculture, it should deal with that part as well. I know that people compartmentalize and say that hunting is different than the other part, but to me, it is critical, especially for the north.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a treat to rise in the House. I will just share a few thoughts about this budget, particularly as it relates to the housing portfolio. I would note that the housing section of the budget this year was significant. Unlike other years, housing was at the very beginning of the budget. I find it interesting because the government has talked a lot about housing for some time.

We certainly all recall the 2017 launch of the Liberals' national housing strategy. We saw lots of pictures and videos of the Prime Minister with some of his MP colleagues and workers in front of a big housing project. At the time, the Prime Minister announced $40 billion, and gradually the Liberals came up with new numbers that brought it up to $70 billion, not all of which was really new money. However, it was lots of fanfare and lots of talk.

In fact, the Prime Minister, at the time, described the national housing strategy as being a life-changing, “transformational” national housing strategy. That was announced with lots of fanfare, and then the Liberals slowly rolled it out. We found out a few years later, from a report from the Auditor General on the specific piece of it that was about homelessness, that the department was not even tracking the spending. The government did not really know whether it was having any impact. As the Auditor General and maybe anybody else with any sense would know, if one is not tracking what they are doing, then they do not know if the money they are spending is actually having any impact or they are just throwing money out the window. The department was not really tracking it, which I guess probably does not come as a huge surprise with the government. The Liberals really are a lot better at the photo ops than they are at the follow-through, so they did not really know if that was working or not.

However, Canadians know the truth of all that because, despite the fanfare and the announcements made in 2017, tent cities are not just in the large cities in this country. They are everywhere. They are in smaller towns all across the country. Homelessness is worse now than it has been since we started tracking homelessness. Then, as well, we also know the results of the national housing strategy and the transformational program. Since the government took office nine years ago, house prices and rents have doubled in this country. Thanks to the excessive borrowing, there were going to be little, wee deficits. We remember that it was a $10-billion deficit. Deficits were going to be very, very small. Former prime minister Harper warned us that maybe that that was not true and, sure enough, he was correct. The deficits have been massive. Of course, out-of-control spending and out-of-control borrowing lead to higher interest rates and higher inflation, and that is what we have seen with the government.

We fast forward it to today, when we have the borrowing and the excessive spending and, on top of that, the extra taxes. We have talked a lot about the various different tax schemes these guys have come up with to fund their spending. Ottawa does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem.

Therefore, they came up with the carbon tax, which the Liberals have been insisting all this time is really good, that it is going to reduce carbon emissions and that it is good for people. The Liberals keep saying that eight out of 10 people get more more money back. Do they know what? The lid is finally off. We have finally seen the hidden reports of the Minister of Environment that, in fact, the carbon tax is going to cost the economy $25 billion to $30 billion. We know that it is a tax on a tax on a tax on a tax.

I bring it back to housing. Carbon tax applies to every stage of building a home. Whether it is the materials that are produced to build the home or the truck that is used to deliver the materials to the site, the carbon tax adds on to that and, of course, there is tax on top of the carbon tax. Governments make more money on housing than anybody else does. In this country, the average cost of government on every single home is about 33%. That is more than the builders make on houses. However, it is not just the federal level or the provincial level. It is the local level. Of course, the Liberals finally caught on to the fact that housing was actually in a crisis.

I asked the previous minister if he would call this situation a “crisis.” He was afraid to use that word and would not use that word. In the summer of 2023, he was booted out, and a new minister was put in who is very good at using the word “crisis”, who is quick on his feet, who is a great debater, who is really good with the YIMBY language and who is generally a nice guy, too. I really like him.

However, at the same time, he has come up with even more programs. The one I find particularly bizarre is the housing accelerator fund. All the Liberals like to talk about it. They are really proud of the housing accelerator fund because it is designed to speed up the building permit process in cities. The idea is that they would go around, city to city, and they would have these agreements with the cities to speed up their processes to make it easier to build.

I have asked to see those agreements. There are about 100 or so cities, and I cannot see them. For whatever reason, they are a secret. However, I have been able to dig into some of the municipal planning reports that have gone to their councils. I will use Toronto as an example, just because Toronto is where the crisis is almost as acute as anywhere in the country. Vancouver is the worst, and I would say Toronto is next.

The City of Toronto, in its housing accelerator application, agreed to a couple of different things to try to speed up the process. It was all in the reports. We do not know, of course, if any of these things have actually been done, except for one. We know that one thing that the minister really pushed was the concept of permitting fourplexes, four units, without having to get any special permission on any residential zone. Whatever kind of homes people live in, in the city of Toronto, they could turn it into four units, without going for a special permit, a rezoning or any kind of public hearing. People could do that.

The minister pushed that in almost all of these agreements. It is almost as though he thought it was some kind of a silver bullet to solve the problem. As it turns out, the City of Toronto has already permitted this for about a year. In that time, there have been 74 applications to transform buildings into fourplexes. We know it is really not a silver bullet, but it was one of the big pushes.

At the same time as we have a housing supply crisis, we also have a housing affordability crisis. Again, it is because of not only the cost of materials but also the cost of local governments. Local governments charge so many fees. There are building permit fees, connection fees, permit fees and development charges. A lot of people do not understand these development charges. A cheque has to be cut just for the privilege of having that piece of property that someone might be able to one day build a house on.

That is not to mention the long, painful delays to get approvals. It takes, on average, in Canada, 249 days to get a building permit. In the United States, it takes, on average, 80 days. It is insane. Time is money. We could ask any builder, and they would tell us that time is money. That makes it more expensive.

We have this situation where the City of Toronto, one of the most expensive cities in the country to build in, got $471 million from the Liberal government. It is so proud of this money, yet in the same time it got that money, it increased its development charges by 20%. It is not $97,000 for the privilege of building on a new lot, it is $117,000 now. I just do not understand, in a housing affordability crisis, why the government is borrowing money. Keep in mind that this is $4 billion of borrowed money, when the deficit is $40 billion, that it is going to give to cities that then turn around and make it more expensive to build.

I am sure the Speaker cannot believe it. The Speaker is smiling because he cannot believe it. It is insane. This is what former Liberal finance minister John Manley referred to as driving with one's foot on the gas and the brake at the same time. The Liberal government is giving money to cities, which makes it more expensive. The Liberals are proud of this and think it is going to be some kind of a magical solution to what is literally a crisis in this country.

It is a shame. There are too many Canadians suffering with a photo-op government that does not deliver the results, and Canadians are paying the price.

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

Mr. Speaker, and then there was reality. The reality is that we have a government that is actually building literally thousands of homes in co-operation with other levels of government.

Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, who, when he was the minister of housing, in one year, built, and I need two hands for this, six houses. I can suggest to you that the programs being put in place would have a positive, profound impact by working with other levels of government, contrary to the position that the Conservatives have, which is to cut the funding and beat the municipalities over the head to try to get them to build more homes. That is the Conservative approach.

Why does the member believe the Conservative approach is going to build any houses?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would anybody accept the premise of that ridiculous question? That is not the Conservative approach. The Conservative approach is to reward results, not to pay for promises, which is the Liberal approach. They keep spending money, borrowing money and pushing the cost of paying off that debt onto the next generation, which is already thinking they will never be able to own a home of their own. The fact of the matter is that cities are a big part of the problem. They are on the front lines of the crisis, but they are also part of the problem. Just rewarding them with millions and millions of dollars, while they make it more expensive, is idiotic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where we have conducted many studies on the housing issue.

It is all well and good to talk about housing and affordable housing, but many witnesses have said that the issue cannot be reduced to supply and demand alone. We should not just focus on supporting private sector construction; we also need to invest in social housing. We need to invest in non-market funding to support non-profit organizations and co-operative housing. That is where the needs are pressing.

Does my colleague agree with such a measure?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is this:

Yes, I agree.

There are lots of examples where governments can work together in partnership with community organizations. When I was the mayor of Huntsville, we gave land to different community organizations to build affordable and deeply affordable units. The federal government owns all kinds of buildings, thousands and thousands of buildings that are underutilized, and all kinds of land. We could make that land available in partnership with organizations and could reduce the cost of getting these units built, and we could get a lot more done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments about the Liberal government; what we have seen is a doubling of housing prices under the Liberal government. There is no doubt. Up until now, until the NDP forced the Liberals to actually make investments in affordable housing, we saw very little action for affordable housing. The problem is, of course, that the Harper government did the same thing. It doubled housing prices and did not construct affordable housing. In fact, it was a disastrous decade for social housing, co-operative housing, and it was probably the worst period in our history.

I wanted to ask my colleague why he thinks the Harper government failed, and why have Conservatives not apologized for their part in the housing affordability crisis?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick answer for that member. The Harper government did not fail. In fact, houses cost half the price back then. Rent was half the price back then. In fact, with the crisis we have today, the genesis of it was with the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, in fact. It was actually the Stephen Harper government that recognized we had a problem with homelessness in this country and that came up with the housing first program. It doubled the amount of money that the previous Liberal government was putting into homeless programs. It was the one that caught on, that recognized we had a problem and that started to do something about it. It was not a failure. The Liberals love to talk about how little investment there was in the Harper era. There was investment, and it was not in a crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a headline. It says, “'Impossibly unaffordable': Vancouver 3rd-worst city for housing”.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is true.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a former parliamentarian just a few days ago. Gilles Perron, who was the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for 11 years, passed away after a brief battle with cancer. He will be remembered as a fighter, someone who was close to his constituents and dedicated to his community. He will also be remembered for his extraordinary commitment to veterans. Any progress made on post-traumatic stress disorder is thanks to him. Dearest Gilles, thank you and rest in peace.

Despite this sad news, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill to implement certain provisions of budget 2024, Bill C-69. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill. Why? It is because too many aspects of the bill go against our values, the needs of Quebec society and what we have been protecting from the very beginning, that is, Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. They are also other provinces' areas of jurisdiction, provinces that might be less combative than Quebec, but, basically, these are our jurisdictions. As I see it, all of this is having a negative impact on the environmental balance of Quebec and Canada.

We have before us a mammoth omnibus bill. We are talking about 650 pages. It contains 67 different measures, 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. Objectively speaking, this bill has some positive aspects, but clearly it has too many irritants for the Bloc Québécois to agree to support it. I will focus my speech on just two points. Given that we are talking about a 650-page bill, we obviously have to limit ourselves. Two things in this bill are very important to me, and Quebeckers are concerned about them too. I am talking about oil and the environment. Oil gets a lot of ink. Far be it from me to make extremist or—how shall I put this—demagogic comments, because people still need oil.

We still need oil, unfortunately, but if we were able to advocate for a well-thought-out, calculated phase-out of oil and gas extraction, that would help us move on to something else and look to the future in a better light. However, our government and the Conservatives are obviously not taking that direction. The implementation of budget 2024 is clear proof of that.

Who here believes that there is a single oil company in Canada that needs subsidies to operate? No one, obviously. I think that even the Conservatives would agree with me. Ottawa is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of a whopping $30.3 billion in tax credits. Subsidizing companies that have record revenues year after year does not add up and is even rather obscene.

The massive subsidies the federal government is giving oil companies in the form of tax credits will total $83 billion by 2035. Six tax credits were introduced by the Liberals in the last two budgets. What is more, this $83 billion is being given to companies whose shareholders are 70% foreigners, people from outside Canada. This creates a significant flight of capital out of Quebec and Canada. It is important to mention it.

As for the profits generated by these same oil companies, we are talking about $38 billion from 2020 to 2022. Yes, we, the taxpayers, are paying oil companies to continue polluting when they are making record profits. That is an insult to our intelligence and, of course, to our environment.

Similarly, the government has implemented a clean technology investment tax credit of $17.8 billion. That is also a rather striking and appalling example. Under the guise of promoting clean energy, this tax credit actually seeks to encourage oil companies to use nuclear reactors, which would, of course, enable them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense.

This bill contains another tax credit, the $12.5-billion carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. The problem is that this money once again enables oil companies to extract more oil. What is more, let us not forget that carbon capture is still in its infancy, in a completely experimental phase. The goal is to recover some of the carbon dioxide emitted and then store it underground, usually in old, empty oil wells.

Interestingly, former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, did an interview with a news site called 24 heures on December 5, 2023. She had this to say about the investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage:

It should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that....We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.

I guess the Liberals need to leave their party in order to speak freely and intelligently.

I will now move on to my second point. People have probably been outside today and are likely aware of the massive temperature increase forecast for this week. We are in for a second heat wave, and it is not even officially summer yet. The temperature with humidex will be 45°C. Some 135 million people will be affected by this extreme temperature. There are also the 19 pilgrims who died today in Saudi Arabia. Let us also think of the teachers and students who are finishing their year and their exams in extreme heat. Above all, I am thinking of seniors whose health is fragile and who will be affected by these extreme temperatures. There are also the farmers who are struggling to make sure they can harvest their crops, which provide us with healthy food.

There is absolutely nothing in this budget to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Do we still need to convince the Liberals that it is nearly too late to take action? It is unacceptable to ignore this issue and not prioritize measures to ensure the quality of life for future generations. The Bloc Québécois cannot just sit back and wait for a plan that will not be presented until next fall.

In closing, I would add that the government did not pick up on any of the priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois before the economic statement. These are priorities that would respond to the real and urgent needs of Quebec and would serve Canadians as well. I will simply conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will continue to stand up for the interests of Quebec and its citizens against unfair and harmful measures like the ones in Bill C‑69.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my condolences to the family of Gilles Perron.

Our country relies on exports. Energy, especially oil, represents 10% of our exports.

I know that Germany, Japan and Greece told the Prime Minister that they would like to have access to these products. The Prime Minister responded by saying that he would think about it, that he did not know whether there was a framework or if this would work.

My question is this. Why would the Bloc Québécois rather that the money go to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela instead of Canada?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Before giving the floor to the member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles, I would like to commend my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge on his French.

The hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his condolences to Mr. Perron's family.

This is not about the money going to Canada, Saudi Arabia, Brazil or wherever. It is about creating a plan to get off fossil fuels. The Liberals are not really offering us that plan, and neither are the Conservatives, that is for sure.

We still need oil. Unfortunately, I still have a car that runs on oil, for a short time at least. We need to create a plan to move away from fossil fuels, plain and simple.