SoVote

Mar/22/22 4:06:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Sometimes we are on the same wavelength, and sometimes we are not at all. Today is an example of the latter. Oil companies benefit when the price of crude oil goes up. Oil companies benefit at every stage of the refining process. Oil companies pocket the price increase at the pump. Ultimately, oil companies are the ones who benefit from inflation. Some oil companies have Russian oligarchs at the helm. I have a hard time understanding why my colleague has not taken that into consideration.

104 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Mar/22/22 5:10:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my speech will be the last one on today's motion. I have a question. Why does the official opposition think that the gas tax is the only way to solve the runaway inflation that is currently happening across the spectrum? Anyone who must use a gas-powered vehicle is certainly feeling a little pinch when it comes time to pay. I heard people being interviewed on the radio recently who said that they were going to reconsider their daily use and their trips, and perhaps carpool or opt for a monthly public transit pass. Despite the inconvenience of changing one's habits, I am inclined to say that these are, in the end, good habits to develop. However, some people do not have these options. Our comments on inflation felt at the pump should normally be followed by a dialogue. We should be seeing acts to justify reaching a consensus on such a motion to reduce taxes. However, there has been nothing of the sort. The inflationary phenomenon does not affect only people who use gas. It is hurting other sectors of the economy, too. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert talked about this in reference to housing and groceries, to name but two essential and unavoidable expenses. What they are proposing is relief at the pumps. However, in 12 months, the price per barrel of oil went from $64 to $128. Who pocketed the increase for crude oil? The oil companies did. Who pocketed the refining fees, which have quadrupled? The oil companies did. The shareholders, which include several Russians by the way, are thrilled and are busy filling up tax havens. Who profits from inflation? Again, the oil companies do. Who is against having the oil companies do their part to ease the burden on the public? That would be the Conservatives. They could have moved a motion to that effect and we would have been pleased to support it. However, that is not the case. They are proposing the opposite. If the goal is to protect consumers from the oil companies that are fleecing them or—to put it another way—from inflationary increases in the price of gas, then they should draft a motion that would have the oil companies contribute their share, because they are at the root of the problems we are condemning. Are we to believe that the average person filling up their tank realizes not only how much profit the oil companies are raking in, but also the obscene amount of money the government gives to the industry? We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, year after year, no matter which party is in power. I have a hard time believing that the average person would support this. Unfortunately, the official opposition would rather make taxpayers, who are already struggling financially, pay so that consumers can get some relief at the pumps. The opposition would rather that everyone other than oil companies pay. When will the Conservatives stop moving motion after motion that benefits this sector while failing to propose fair measures for all sectors in our society? We are locked into government policies that are all too often designed to make the rich richer. Instead we should be implementing meaningful policies that would focus on real opportunities, the opportunities we need to establish a solid, fair and equitable foundation for society as a whole and that would have a real, meaningful impact for people. The problem of Inflation, which is going up and shows no sign of slowing down in the near future, will not be solved with measures like the ones the Conservatives are proposing. It will certainly not be solved by increasing oil production, as the Conservatives were calling for two or three weeks ago in response to the conflict in Ukraine. What inflation shows us is that the poorest, those on fixed incomes, are the most affected. I am thinking of seniors primarily. There are structural economic weaknesses that must be corrected and that require short-term remedies, but, more importantly, they also require long-term measures. I will try to explain what must be done in the short term. We must stop cutting right now—and not in one or even two months—the guaranteed income supplement cheques of the poorest seniors who received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit last year. At the same time, and not six months from now, we must increase old age security to ensure that seniors maintain their purchasing power in light of the increased cost of living. That is something concrete and responsible that can be done immediately. These are the firm positions the Bloc Québécois has called for for some time now, but such measures have so far failed to materialize. It takes political will to implement long-term measures. There must be follow-through on the fine speeches and the positions we try to present. I will try anyway, as one never knows. I am thinking of the small percentage point of state revenue that the government should permanently allocate to the construction of social housing and that it should send to Quebec, the only province that provides ongoing funding for the construction of social housing in Canada. These monies would make it possible for Quebec to more quickly implement its own programs. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert spoke eloquently about this a few minutes ago. When the government does not use the tools it has to tackle the labour shortage, which is what we are seeing now, obviously we have reason to worry about the future. Our aging population is real, and we need workers. I cannot be the only MP who is getting calls about the never-ending application processing times at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for seasonal or skilled foreign workers, and from businesses that are at the end of their rope. Once again, the Bloc has a real solution that will produce real results. We want to lighten the government's load by taking the temporary foreign worker program off its hands altogether. This would be a great way for the government to lighten its load. This idea makes a lot of sense for those who like common sense. Quebec is already responsible for its labour policies. We have Emploi-Québec, industry committees and expertise on the ground already. This move would obviate the need for a study for every application, and it would expedite the process overall. Solutions and government policies exist to address economic disruptions, some of which were exacerbated by the pandemic. Others have talked about this. Going back to the motion we are opposing, the economic argument is used extensively to convince people of the need to continue with the fossil fuel approach. In reality, however, we do not decide the price of oil, as it is set on the London and New York stock exchanges. There is little we can do to limit the fluctuations and price increases. However, it is possible to make the economy more resilient to these fluctuations by reducing our reliance on oil and by accelerating the transition to renewable energies. My colleagues saw me coming, I am sure. The truth needs to be told loud and clear when it comes to the real price of energy and gasoline. The price is much higher than what we pay at the pump. The real price includes social costs, including to our health care systems. Thousands of people die each year from illnesses directly related to air pollution, especially children with lung and respiratory conditions. The real price also includes all the public funds given in subsidies and tax breaks to the oil and gas sector to support an industry that will eventually disappear whether we like it or not. Finally, that price includes the environmental costs occurring upstream during a hyper-polluting extraction that causes environmental damage and downstream when these products are consumed or burned. Everything this industry produces contributes to the climate crisis and our collective destiny. Today is World Water Day, as declared by the UN. I will remind everyone and the opposition of the devastation that this industry is inflicting on regional waterways with the foulest impunity. Now we are being asked to continue enriching this sector even more. Is there no limit to the indecency? As they say, to ask the question is to answer it.

1418 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:21:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. He is absolutely right. I did not mention it in my speech, but some of my colleagues did. It is so obvious that the QST belongs to Quebec. No federal legislation will override our QST legislation. It is as clear as that.

55 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:22:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. My colleague does not have the good fortune to sit on the excellent House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Last year, I put forward a motion to develop a federal zero-emissions law. From the testimony we heard, we learned that there is a company in Montreal that recycles batteries from electric cars for the purpose of putting them back into new electric cars. The electrification of transportation is moving forward at breakneck speed. Week by week, things are changing and discoveries are being made. At the University of Sherbrooke, they are working on electrolyte batteries that would increase the distance travelled and reduce charging time. There is a lot of research and development going on in this area; it is a beautiful thing. We talk about it sometimes in committee.

143 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:25:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, we could help seniors directly by increasing the guaranteed income supplement and old age security. I will make a connection with food, which is a very important issue to talk about. It is often said that seniors living alone do not eat properly and sometimes have to choose between food and medication because inflation is too high. I always put that in the context of the environment. Consider the droughts in western Canada and the wildfires that have caused crop failures and increased the price of food for everyone, including seniors. The consequences of the climate crisis ultimately are that we are paying more and inflation is rising. Fighting climate change involves dealing with everything that is very human, particularly people's health.

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Mar/22/22 5:26:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length just now about social and community housing. I would like to share a very personal story. My son, who is 30 years old, does not have a car, so he does not have to pay at the pump, but he does live in an apartment. He has a hard time making ends meet, and sometimes mom and dad have to help him little. If we had more social housing and community housing, we could help young people like him. Lots of people do not have cars. It does not always have to be about oil, oil—

104 words