44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 29, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/29/22 11:19:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are here to debate a Conservative motion that is interesting, to say the least. I really want the people who are listening to us today to read and understand the wording of this motion. It is very interesting, and I will explain.
The motion reads as follows:
That, given that the cost of government is driving up inflation, making the price of goods Canadians buy and the interest they pay unaffordable, this House call on the government to commit to no new taxes on gas, groceries, home heating and pay cheques.
This motion is really interesting in that it represents the definition of populism. Populism is using issues that people are rightly concerned about, such as inflation, and proposing bogus solutions to achieve a goal that is not described in this motion. This is simply an attempt to downsize government and prevent it from doing its job while also manipulating people and taking them for a ride to feed their fear of, or concerns about, the carbon tax. I wanted to read it out loud and demonstrate just how little sense this motion makes.
The cure for populism is education. Therefore, I would like to give a lecture similar to the one I would prepare for a college student enrolled in economics 101. I go into much more detail with my master's students.
Economics 101: What is an externality? An externality is when a cost or a societal effect is not included in the price, the price being a market indicator, of a good or a service. This externality is often incurred on goods and services for which there are environmental impacts that have not been quantified or taken into account in the price. The role of the state in these cases is actually to identify the externality and include it in the price.
That is exactly what the government is trying to do with its carbon tax. I will go into a bit more detail on the carbon tax. It is one of the necessary means to address climate change.
Let us go back to basics. What is climate change? I am looking at my friends over there to be sure they understand me clearly. Greenhouse gases, namely methane, CO2, nitrous oxide and ozone, are gases emitted by human beings that have an impact on people through climate change. The effects of climate change have been studied extensively for the past 20 or 30 years. We know all about them now. We can measure their impact on people. A few years ago, I was a co-author of a study on the impact of climate change in Quebec. We know that climate change has real, tangible costs.
First, there are infrastructure costs because of floods and storms. Today our thoughts are with our friends in the Magdalen Islands and eastern Canada that were hit hard by a big storm, hurricane Fiona. Hurricanes are stronger now because climate change intensifies them. Shoreline erosion is also an issue that has a major economic impact.
Then there is the thawing permafrost. When the land thaws, infrastructure built on the ground, such as housing, collapses. Look at what is happening to our first nations friends.
Those are direct, tangible, quantifiable impacts of climate change.
There are also health impacts, including those caused by the emergence of zoonoses. What are zoonoses? They are diseases spread by animals that are vectors for disease, for example Lyme disease or the Nile virus. These diseases came from the south because temperatures are rising. There are also allergies. Our Conservative friends really like to talk about productivity and efficiency. When people have allergies, which are on the rise with climate change, they are less productive at work.
Finally there are heat waves. That is very important. Every year, heat waves cause the deaths of seniors in their homes. The Conservatives constantly talk about seniors. That is real. Older individuals are dying because of climate change and their lives have value.
The cost of these consequences is quantifiable, and it comes out to millions of dollars. Climate change has a cost for society. This cost is not included in the price we pay for gas.
Now that we have addressed the problems, let us talk about solutions. Economists have given us solutions many times. One of them is the carbon tax. Another is the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances implemented a long time ago in Quebec.
In 2014, Quebec linked its system with California’s. They did not link their system with any other Canadian province, but with California. They had to go south of the border to find people who cared to do something about climate change. That was in 2014, eight years ago. Maybe we were a little ahead of the curve in Quebec. This is not the first time I am saying that, and it will surely not be the last.
Quebec has assumed its responsibility in the fight against climate change. I will give a small but very important example to show how well these measures work. In 2015, Quebec reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.8% over 1990 levels. It works. The government must be able to implement measures to fight climate change.
The government needs to take action. Once again, the carbon tax is one of the measures it can use. However, we are happy that it does not apply to Quebec and that we can stay on the right track with the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. There are plenty of other means, but it is obvious that tax measures are the best way for a government to change people’s behaviour. That is a well-known fact; there is a lot of literature on the subject. I would be more than happy to send my colleagues a ton of papers. That might help them learn more about this very important topic.
Let us talk about the social cost of carbon. This cost does not reflect the market value of a tonne of carbon. There are now markets like Quebec's cap-and-trade system and the European carbon exchange that set a certain price. The social cost of carbon is higher. The U.S. has estimated the social of carbon at $51 per tonne. A very recent study in the journal Nature suggests that the cost should be roughly $180 per tonne. That is much higher than the estimate currently being used. The carbon tax is a start. It is nothing compared to the real cost of climate change.
The social cost of carbon is very difficult to measure. As I have already said, it can vary widely. Surprisingly, a tonne emitted in China has exactly the same impact as a tonne emitted in Canada. However, it is difficult to establish its value, which is why a range is used. This value is established by models that predict the impacts of climate change today and in the coming years. Everyone agrees that the next few generations are pretty important.
The government has a duty to take climate action. Everyone needs to come to an agreement on this, once and for all. Let us stop using issues like inflation, which concern the public and rightly so, to justify measures that stand in the way of the government taking climate action.
The Bloc Québécois has proposed some real solutions to combat inflation. I gave the example of seniors. The Conservatives go on and on about how much they care about seniors, but they do not have much to say when we propose increasing old age security.
We are also proposing that we build more social housing. The government should be investing 1% of its revenue in social housing.
We have a number of solutions, but one very important one on which we should align with the Conservatives is the free market. Why do we not hear them talk more about protecting and, most importantly, increasing the power of the Competition Bureau? As my colleague mentioned earlier, companies are getting rich at our expense. We must fight oligopolies and monopolies that are artificially making our prices too high.
These are measures that would truly help Quebeckers and Canadians. This is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing, while the Conservative Party proposes bogus solutions.
1404 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 11:30:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the points the member made were very good. I am very glad to hear her call out the populism and the approaches being taken by the members opposite.
I would like to understand and get your thoughts on this. The new leader of the opposition has worked in the House since he was 24. He has never worked outside of the House. He has built his studies on the teachings of Milton Friedman. You spoke about his lack of consideration and lack of concern for monopolistic behaviour, as well as his emphasizing shareholder values and not worrying about Canadians. I am wondering whether you could comment on that and what influence that might have had.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 11:31:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for her comments.
She talked about populism, but I would like to give her another definition of that term. I believe that populism also means being sensitive to people's needs and anxieties. The government and even experts should be very careful about taking the attitude that they know more than the average person. It is an important consideration.
She talked about the price of carbon. In Vancouver, where I live, the price of gas is almost $2.50 a litre, while in Alberta, it is roughly $1.50 a litre. That is a big difference that is attributable to taxes.
My question is on employment insurance. Premiums are going up by 9% this year, which is not insignificant, especially when there is a multi-billion dollar surplus in the fund. Can the member say a few words about that?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 12:05:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that the Conservatives are moving this motion today because real solutions are much more complex. There should be more thought put into how to create wealth while protecting the environment and, above all, how to share this wealth.
We heard about populism today and, to my great surprise, a Conservative colleague said he was proud to be a populist. I almost fell off my chair, but these are sturdy chairs. My question is simple.
Does my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who I hold in high regard, agree with me that this Conservative motion proposes simplistic and populist solutions to a complex problem?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 1:52:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is great to rise today to speak to this opposition day motion. I probably will not surprise members by saying that it is pretty much a non-starter for me, especially after one reads the first seven or eight words in the motion. It starts off stating, “That, given...the cost of government is driving up inflation”.
Here we are, once again, with a misrepresentation of reality being proposed by the Conservative Party, by suggesting that inflation is something unique to Canada. Inflation is a global issue right now. All developed countries around the world are dealing with it.
Let me just refresh for the members what is going on in the world. Of the G7 countries, Japan's inflation rate is 3%; France is 5.9%; Canada is 7%; Germany is 7.9; the U.S. is 8.3%; Italy is 8.4%; and the United Kingdom is 8.6%. The average inflation rate in the OECD countries right now is 10.3%,. For the Conservatives to come in here with their motion, saying it is the government's fault that inflation is where it is, is disingenuous at best and an outright misrepresentation of reality at worst.
Let us dig into why the Conservatives say that. What they are really saying is, and we will hear them say this from time to time, if the government had not spent all that money during the pandemic, we would not have inflation. What they are actually saying in reality, because all of the countries I listed did the exact same thing and are in the exact same position, is that if we had not spent that money during the pandemic, then we would not be in this position.
Therefore, what they are indirectly saying, and this is what the leader of the Conservative Party said about two years ago, is that they do not support giving Canadians the supports they needed during the pandemic. This is what their argument really comes down to even though it is very ironic that the Conservatives voted in favour of $300 billion of that spending during the pandemic.
The Conservatives are blaming the government for the inflation problem that is going on right now globally. I would remind them that it is slightly ironic, because they have a tendency to say the Prime Minister is incapable of doing anything, yet somehow he was able to create global inflation. We will set that aside for a second.
The Conservatives are saying that we should not have allowed that to happen, but they voted in favour of the money that we spent during the pandemic. If they are suggesting that it was the increased spending that has driven inflation, they are in the exact same boat as this side of the House, the Bloc, the NDP, the Green and, indeed, governments throughout planet Earth, as the leader of the Conservative Party likes to refer to it as.
I want to dig into something more important, and that is this newfound interest the Bloc Québécois has in calling out the Conservatives for the populism that is on full display right now. I want to hand it to my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, especially today. A few times today they seem have jumped on board with the rest of the House, except for the Conservative Party, calling out the populous approach the Conservatives are taking. It is the populous approach we have seen in the House for the last year and a half. It is the same approach the Leader of the Opposition took during his leadership campaign. Indeed, it is the same approach they are taking now. What do populous individuals do? They suggest outlandish ideas to garner support from vulnerable people in particular.
What did the Leader of the Opposition do just six months ago? He showed up to buy a shawarma and paid for it with Bitcoin. He offered Bitcoin as an actual viable alternative to using the Canadian dollar. If he went out today and bought that same shawarma, he would effectively be paying $22.35 for that $10 shawarma he bought six months ago. Is that a viable alternative to the Canadian dollar?
The leader of His Majesty's loyal official opposition in the House of Commons in Canada has made the suggestion that Bitcoin should be a viable alternative. I think it is absolutely ludicrous that we cannot even get the Leader of the Opposition to state his official position on it now. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition three times in this House since he was elected as the leader what his position is on cryptocurrency, and if he could come clean and tell Canadians if he still believes that Bitcoin is a viable alternative. He would not even bring himself to utter the words “Bitcoin” or “cryptocurrency”.
I have asked other members from the Conservative Party the same question today. I asked if they would at least just say the words “Bitcoin” or “cryptocurrency”. It is like they have completely removed the words from their vocabulary. They absolutely refuse to even talk about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, let alone the fact that the leader of the official opposition only six months ago waved around a shawarma, with his phone in the other hand, while he paid in Bitcoin for that shawarma. Now where is he? He is absolutely silent on the issue. In my opinion, it gives Canadians an opportunity to reflect on their position.
They have been heckling me almost from the beginning because they do not want to hear this. I understand that they do not want to talk about this issue. I get it. It makes perfect sense. Why would they want to talk about this when the centrepiece policy of the Leader of the Opposition has absolutely taken a 180° turn and gone in a different direction? I can understand where they are coming from, but I also think they have an obligation to explain to Canadians why they have taken this position on cryptocurrency, and more importantly, why they are absolutely silent on it now.
I think it is high time that the leader of the official opposition came into the House and explained this to Canadians, especially those Canadians he recommended Bitcoin to six months ago, who may have taken his advice and purchased it, and who would now have seen their life savings devastated. He owes it to them to come into the House and explain his position on cryptocurrency. He cannot wait for it to just go up and down, and pick and choose when he wants to talk about it based on where it happens to be. He owes it to Canadians to give them an explanation and I hope he does it soon.
1157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now I feel I can deliver a speech.
I want to make one thing clear to the House of Commons. I think this is the appropriate time to point it out, and I think everyone here will agree with me. No one is condoning bullying, be it of health care workers or here in the House. We all know people who have bullied others. Bullies are mean-spirited people whose actions betray their insecurity and fear. We all agree on that.
That being said, we are well aware that this bill has nothing to do with bullying or protecting health care workers from bullying. What this bill would actually do is interfere with people's ability to obtain medical assistance in dying. As I said this morning, the Conservative Party is once again exploiting a serious problem to put forward a misleading solution. The party claims this bill will protect health care workers from bullying, but it is hiding the real objective, which is to interfere with medical assistance in dying. As I said this morning, this is populism.
This morning, a member corrected me, saying that being populist was not necessarily a bad thing. Fine. I should have used the term “demagoguery”. It is demagoguery.
We know full well that this bill does not seek to eliminate the bullying of health care professionals. Its objective is simply once again to obstruct existing legislation in Quebec. What is more, it seeks to allow a medical practitioner or a health care professional to not refer a case to a colleague. That goes against what we have in Quebec.
Obviously, the Bloc opposes this bill, just as we opposed Bill C‑268 in the last Parliament, and just as we opposed the proposed amendment to Bill C-7 when it was studied in committee. We have always been opposed to this. I do not know why it has come up a third time. Apparently, they have run out of topics, when there are so many to work on. If the Conservatives are looking for topics, we can help them with that.
Again, the Conservative Party is presenting us with a bill that has a certain objective, but which is worded differently in order to hide its real objective.
We oppose this bill for two reasons.
First of all, it contravenes the Quebec charter of values, rights and freedoms. There are already laws in place to protect health care workers in such situations involving intimidation. Let me give some examples of legislation that allows health care workers to refuse to provide medical assistance in dying.
Quebec's Act respecting end-of-life care states the following:
A physician practising in a centre operated by an institution who refuses a request for medical aid in dying for a reason not based on section 29 must, as soon as possible, notify the executive director of the institution or any other person designated by the executive director and forward the request form given to the physician, if that is the case, to the executive director or designated person. The executive director of the institution or designated person must then take the necessary steps to find, as soon as possible, another physician willing to deal with the request in accordance with section 29.
Subsection 241.2(9) of the Criminal Code states:
For greater certainty, nothing in this section compels an individual to provide or assist in providing medical assistance in dying.
Health care workers are already protected by the Criminal Code.
Finally, section 24 of the Code of ethics of physicians of Quebec recognizes conscientious objection for medical practitioners, which is the right not to resort to a medical act that goes against their values. It is also recognized in Quebec's Act respecting end-of-life care. The physician is nevertheless required to find another physician.
A physician must, where his personal convictions prevent him from prescribing or providing professional services that may be appropriate, acquaint his patient with such convictions; he must also advise him of the possible consequences of not receiving such professional services. The physician must then offer to help the patient find another physician.
Ontario has a similar provision. Therefore, physicians and health care workers in that province do not need this bill.
Second, we are opposed to this bill because it allows physicians not to refer a case. Let us recall certain statistics. It is all too clear: There is a growing demand for medical assistance in dying, in Quebec as well as in Canada, since these laws were passed.
End-of-life care meets a need and helps ease the suffering of patients who are dying. Since the act came into force, the number of cases of MAID in Quebec has increased year over year. In 2016-17 there were 599 cases and in 2020-21 there were 2,426, which represents a 405% increase.
According to the annual report of the commission on end-of-life care, three-quarters of patients who requested MAID had cancer.
We can all agree that individuals who request MAID do not do so lightly. These people have a right to dignity and that is what is most important in all of this.
A certain balance must be struck and a decision made. That is the issue: striking a balance between an individual's dignity and freedom of conscience and religion. This has already been studied. Quebec has been discussing these issues for 10 years. That was the objective of the bill sponsored by Ms. Hivon, who I would like to congratulate today, and which was adopted on June 5, 2014. A lot of work went into this. Years were spent studying and evaluating these issues. Why not trust the work that has already been done by Quebec in this area?
This seems to be a recurring theme in the House. The federal government starts from scratch without building on what has already been done. It does not have to look far; Quebec is just across the Ottawa River.
The Quebec National Assembly is working on the issue; among other things, the Select Committee on Dying with Dignity was created on December 4, 2009. There is a consensus in Quebec that access to medical assistance in dying should not be restricted. The Quebec National Assembly spent 10 years examining both sides of the issue I just spoke about.
I will conclude here. I repeat: Medical assistance in dying is not designed to go against the values, religions or religious practices of certain Conservative Party members. Medical assistance in dying is an essential measure that allows people to die with honour and dignity. That is in line with Quebec's charter of values and its charter of rights and freedoms.
1137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
