44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I just want to tell my colleagues that repeating a falsehood does not make it true.
One reason the price of gas is skyrocketing today is refining margins. Big oil producers have boosted their refining margins significantly. Suggesting that the government should cut taxes to give big oil more room to manoeuvre when these greedy corporations are siphoning off what little money the Canadian middle class has is a little rich, in my opinion.
I do not know if my colleague is aware of what refining margins are for oil companies.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, especially since it might give me a chance to reconcile with the member for Winnipeg North. We had a bit of a discussion about Quebec's political weight this week. I am soft at heart and did not want to offend him, so I thought to myself, why not try to be optimistic for 10 minutes?
I will start by saying that there is a pretty big rumour going around, fuelled by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, that the Bloc Québécois is looking for a fight. First of all, the very definition of politics involves parties with opposing views that challenge one another, which inevitably leads to some fighting. However, that is not all. The Bloc Québécois is a party of proposals, and we demonstrated this in the context of programs related to COVID-19. Consider, for example, commercial rents. The Bloc Québécois has proven that it is ready to work to improve government bills.
For example, there is my colleague from Joliette, also known as “handsome Gaby”, and what he has done for the meaderies. In my riding, there is the Walkyrie meadery in the small municipality of Lamarche. The owner, Pierrot Lessard, came to meet with me with one of my former students. That struck me, because shifting from political science to making mead is quite something, even though politics leads to all things. They told me that if an excise tax were ever imposed, they would no longer be competitive and could not sell their bottles of mead. They were truly distraught. We managed to talk about it with my colleague from international trade and the member for Joliette, and I think it was a good collaboration. This may be what brings us closer together, the member for Winnipeg North and me.
I simply and quickly want to say that lifting the excise tax in the context of the agreement with Australia is a big deal for Quebec. Microbreweries are developing and expanding. We are seeing that quite a bit in Quebec, but we are also seeing that with the meaderies and the cider mills. The volume of cider production has gone from 3.2 million litres in 2005 to 5.1 million litres in 2021. That is not nothing. That is 60% growth in five years. The sector is clearly booming. An estimated 11% of all apples grown in Quebec are turned into cider, a volume that is trending upward. I can imagine what the imposition of the excise tax might have meant; it would have disrupted not only the development of the cideries sector, but also that of the apple growers. We know that the excise tax would have considerably reduced the farmers' net margin. Lifting the tax is a good thing. This collaboration is something the member for Winnipeg North could keep in mind when we talk about this again later.
The other fairly interesting aspect of Bill C‑19 is the work of my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, whose nickname is “sweet Loulou”. The Bloc Québécois demonstrated that Bill C‑19 contained a significant flaw concerning the social security tribunals. I remember them because I had some dealings with groups of unemployed workers when the Harper government decided to carry out its unfortunate reform of EI in 2013. I am not going to make my Conservative colleagues' ears burn, but the government replaced the administrative tribunals with a single-window decision body. Many unemployed workers ended up being very poorly served. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who is a former trade unionist, which shows that no one is perfect, raised this with the support of former colleagues, and the government reconsidered its position. This change had been proposed by KPMG. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville argued this point very capably, with the result that we were able to move Bill C‑19 in a direction that may serve the interests of unemployed workers better. I want to thank her for that.
I said that I wanted to be optimistic, but bad habits are hard to shake.
There are some aspects of Bill C‑19 that are not quite as good. My colleagues know that I am a fan of the Minister of Finance. I have been in Parliament since 2019, and I have found the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to be amenable and open to discussion. I will always remember how much she helped by getting aluminum recognized in CUSMA. Through our discussions with her, we were able to come to an acceptable compromise.
I do get the impression that she has been weighed down a bit because of the conflict in Ukraine, which must be taking up a lot of her time. I want to be charitable because that is not her fault. However, there is something that the government did not manage to address in Bill C‑19, and that is the harmful effects of the luxury tax on the aerospace industry. This issue could have been addressed relatively easily, since we are in favour of the luxury tax in principle. The only problem we have is that this tax also applies to exports.
My colleagues know that the aerospace industry is located primarily in Quebec. This tax weakens that industry. In simple terms, Bombardier estimates that this tax could impact its cash flow by as much as $50 million to $150 million per quarter. There should have been an opportunity to work on this as a team, which would have been very welcome.
I do see a way out. As we emerge from the crisis, the public treasury will have to get back on its feet. Our country's fat cats must be asked to contribute in order to have worthwhile public services. Why not go after the greediest ones? On this point, I agree with my NDP colleagues. Right now, the fattest cats are the oil and gas sectors, which are reaping profits the likes of which have not been seen in 30 years. It is completely outrageous that every big oil and gas company is pocketing middle-class wealth while ordinary people are forced to continue buying gas while waiting for transportation electrification. That said, I do see a solution, namely, slightly more aggressive taxation and an end to the generous subsidies that the oil and gas sectors receive.
We as a society will pay for these much-vaunted carbon capture and sequestration strategies. The budget earmarks $2.6 billion to support greedy oil companies, which I find kind of hard to swallow given that I am still waiting for the federal government to support the aerospace industry, a pretty crucial sector for Quebec's future.
I am a good sport, and I hope to connect with Ms. Freeland after the battle. Maybe we will manage to—
1194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my most sincere apologies. How rude of me. I got carried away, and I apologize.
I cannot finish without speaking about what is missing from Bill C‑19. This bill provides $2 billion for health, but this is a one-time, non-recurring payment. Has a nurse ever been hired on a non-recurring basis? We cannot say that we need a nurse or medical specialist for the year 2022-23 but will no longer need them in 2024.
The major missing piece in Bill C‑19 is funding for health care. All of the provinces are asking for $28 billion to increase the federal share of funding from 22% to 35% of the total cost of health care. Everyone knows that, year after year, Quebec allocates between 46% and 48% of its total budget to health care.
How much is left for primary, secondary and post-secondary education? How much is left for all the other government responsibilities? Not much. This is work we could do together with the government. A sustainable health care system requires transfers. I am certain that we will manage to discuss this issue with our Liberal colleagues.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to correct my colleague.
It is true that there was an indication from Canadians during the election campaign. That does not stop at the end of the campaign, however. The government needs to listen to what civil society is saying now.
Not too long ago, we showed up with representatives from all health care sector unions. All of these big unions called for health transfers to be increased to 35%. All provincial premiers and the Council of the Federation have said the same thing.
Collaboration requires that the government listen to civil society, but I do not think that is happening. Sometimes, the government appears to be using its new alliance with the NDP as an excuse not to listen. This is not a judgment, but something I have observed.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely.
However, my main concern is that all this public money is going to the oil and gas sector, which is making money hand over fist. I cannot understand why any public decision-maker would decide to financially support an industry that is currently reaping eye-watering profits, an industry that also contributes to putting us all at risk, since it is the industry that produces the most greenhouse gases.
When people look back and analyze this situation in 20 or 30 years' time, I can guarantee that no one will believe the kind of rationale the government is using to try to justify supporting the oil and gas industry.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague, especially given that the Minister of Environment told us that he was going to end the fossil fuel subsidies since they are inefficient. I now have the impression that all this talk of inefficient subsidies is nothing but rhetoric.
What the government is trying to say today is that the oil and gas sector is synonymous with green development, which is a complete contradiction. Far more things, constructive things, could be done by investing in clean energy sectors. However, that is not happening.
I will close by saying that it is a 1:14 ratio. The government is investing $1 billion in clean energy while investing $14 billion in the oil and gas sector.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
