SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:13:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a point of order.

12 words

Feb/7/23 5:13:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand you were speaking with someone else, but there are members of the Conservative Party talking to my colleague while he is making his speech.

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:13:48 p.m.
Watch

Yes, but the hon. member answered. I ask everyone in the House to respect the person who has the floor and not to argue during that time. Those who want to have discussions should leave.

35 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:14:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, so, I was trying to engage in constructive dialogue with my Conservative friends. I was saying that, no matter how many opposition days we spend talking about getting rid of the carbon tax, we will never come up with anything resembling a solution. Earlier, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, whom I like very much, was asked a question. What would the Conservatives do? What is their plan? We know they want to axe the carbon tax, but what would they do instead? This is a major emergency situation. We all know this country switches back and forth between two governing parties. We spend 10 or 15 years with the red party, then 10 or 15 years with the blue party. Sooner or later, the blue party will be back in power. In the meantime, the orange party plays a supporting role over there. That is how the Canadian system works. Sooner or later, the blue party will be back in power with no plan, no idea what to do about the greatest crisis of our time. As I said earlier, this is both sad and disheartening. It is enough to make anyone want to bash their head against a wall. No wonder people in Quebec want to leave this country. No wonder we have 32 seats here. The red party and the blue party would love to get their hands on our seats in Quebec, but they are not taking action. They are not taking meaningful action on issues that are important to Quebeckers. A large majority of Quebeckers agree with me. People come to my office, people from organizations like Mothers Step In and La Planète s'invite in Longueuil. I meet young people and mothers in my riding who are worried about the future of humanity. They come to see me. They say we have to do something. They ask me to take action, to tell Parliament that we must take action. That is what I am doing. They have mandated me to do so. I am here to tell the so-called decision-makers in the government and the official opposition that they must take action. Something must be done. It is truly appalling that they have no plan to deal with the biggest challenge of our time. The Bloc Québécois has solutions. We have asked the government what needs to be done. First, Canada needs to stop investing in fossil fuels. That is absolutely essential. My Conservative friends are always saying that we need to invest in fossil fuels. It is unbelievable that the Liberals outdo even the Conservatives when it comes to supporting oil companies. I am not joking. The Liberals are so useless that there are environmentalists out there who miss the Conservatives. We are talking about an annual investment of $8.5 billion in fossil fuels. How much social housing could be built for $8.5 billion? How much housing could be built to help people who need it? There is a major housing crisis in Quebec and in Canada. I do not know how many times I have talked about this in the House. The Liberals promised they would stop investing in fossil fuels in 2023. I remember asking them about that on December 11. I brought up their promise that investments would drop to zero in 2023, which was 20 days away at that point. It was time to start thinking about it. Now it is 2023, and I have heard nothing about stopping investments. This is one of the first measures that must be implemented. This money must be invested in renewable energy. We need to make a radical shift. Quebec is ready to do that. We have Hydro-Québec. When the company is not being spied on by China, it makes very good electric batteries. They are working on electric motors. We need to put our money there. What could we do if we put the $8.5 billion we send to ExxonMobil into other things? That company made $75 billion in profits last year. Those poor people. Seriously though, we must take this money and invest it in the energies of the future. That is what we need to do.

719 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 5:19:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, listening to the member from the Bloc, one would think that all we need to do is click our heels and the transition would be complete and there would be no more fossil fuels being used in Canada. The member needs to recognize that there is a transition period. There have been some investments. We work very closely, for example, with the NDP provincial government in British Columbia on the LNG. It is about the principle of putting a price on pollution, as governments around the world have recognized the true value of that. It appears that the Conservative Party today has made it very clear that it opposes that principle. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in terms of the principle of the price on pollution and the benefits to society.

138 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:20:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is a very good measure. However, it needs to be increased far more drastically than it has been so far. I think the UN was recommending that the tax be set at $200 per tonne now. Based on what we are hearing, it will be about $170 per tonne in 2030. That is much too late. It is two minutes past midnight right now. It is no longer one minute to midnight. We must do something drastic. My colleague's intervention makes me think of what my Conservative colleagues have been saying all day. They want to have it both ways. We have passed that point. It is after midnight.

115 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/7/23 5:20:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at a time when the planet has to reduce its carbon emissions, oil companies are making record profits. Canadian oil and gas companies are forecasted to make a record-breaking $147 billion in 2022 alone. I want to read a short quote from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. He said the fossil fuel industry is “feasting on...subsidies and windfall profits while households' budgets shrink and our planet burns.” He said that we need to hold the industry and its enablers to account. He said, “I am calling on all developed economies to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies.” New Democrats believe we should be doing that. I wonder if my hon. colleague agrees.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:21:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I completely agree. I mentioned it in my speech. As I am not an expert, I cannot say how much we should tax those companies. We can see their profits are indecent. Those industries are still making bloated profits from what is happening in the world at this time. We must take this money and invest it for our children. The future of the planet is at stake. There is money there. It is indecent. We must invest it for the future.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Feb/7/23 5:22:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my riding is one of the strongest mining regions in Atlantic Canada. I have a copper mine very close to where I grew up. Right now it is struggling to stay open because of the carbon tax. Every megawatt of wind energy that is generated needs 1,500 kilograms of copper to produce wind energy. I know my hon. colleague from la belle province represents, for sure, lots of mines in his area. Mines are being developed to produce minerals for the green economy. Does he think that those mining companies should be subjected to a carbon tax when they are in fact producing things to produce green energy?

111 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/7/23 5:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is not really my area of expertise, but I do know that the Bloc Québécois proposed a transitional period for oil industry workers. What we are saying is that, one way or another, fossil fuel production will have to cease. However, we know the industry creates a lot of jobs, and we know that matters. These are moms and dads who work in an industry, who have jobs, kids, hobbies, a house and bills to pay, just like everyone else. We are concerned about this, and we are ready to sit down for some level-headed negotiations to figure out how to make this transition, which needs to happen now, as painless as possible for these people.

124 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:24:04 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington, unfortunately, has only two minutes before we end the proceedings. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

24 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Feb/7/23 5:24:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will make full use of the full 120 seconds that I am granted to contribute to this debate. The reason we are here today is because after eight years of the current Liberal government, Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Therefore, we are here today with a very simple motion. It is a motion that so many Canadians would appreciate; that is to axe the carbon tax. We believe in keeping the heat on by taking the tax off. This motion is about the people of this country who work hard each and every day to provide for their families. This motion is about the farmers and farm families who go out every day and produce the food that, quite literally, feeds our country and feeds the world. This motion is about the small business owner who goes to work every morning and works hard to provide the services and the goods that will make our country operate. That same small business owner goes home each night and sits around the family kitchen table, adds up the expenses and figures out how to make payroll for the next week and figures out how to make their small business survive. Often, these businesses have been in the family for decades and for generations, and now they are at risk of closing because their expenses keep going up because of the decisions made by the current Liberal government. This motion is clear: Let us take the carbon tax off; let us stop the inflationary effect that the carbon tax is having on Canadians and let us make sure the farmers, the families, the parents and small business owners are allowed to get ahead.

289 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:26:00 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:26 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House]

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:27:07 p.m.
Watch

Therefore, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

41 words

Mr. John Nater

Feb/7/23 5:27:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:27:11 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

28 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/7/23 5:27:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:41 at this time so we could begin private members' hour.

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 5:27:49 p.m.
Watch

Is there consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It is now 5:41. Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

39 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 5:28:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity that the member for Montcalm has provided me to reaffirm the government's support for Canada's supply management system and for the bill before us. We know that our dairy, poultry and egg producers want to keep the system strong and sustainable well into the future, and so do we. Canada's supply management system is a model of stability. It provides a fair price for farmers, stability for processors and high-quality products for consumers, and has done so for over 50 years. Supply management is a pillar of rural prosperity. It sustains farming families and rural communities. The great contribution of supply-managed sectors to our economy is undeniable. In 2021, the dairy, poultry and egg sectors generated almost $13 billion in farm gate sales and accounted for over 100,000 direct jobs in production and processing activities. In this context, supply-managed sectors have played a significant role in making Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry a leader in sustainable food production and processing with high economic growth potential. For these reasons, the government has consistently reaffirmed its unwavering support for Canada's supply management system, including in the context of international trade agreements. During the negotiations of the new NAFTA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, Canada faced significant pressure to dismantle the supply management system. I cannot stress enough how hard we had to resist. However, we succeeded, and all three pillars of the supply management system remain firmly in place: production controls, pricing mechanisms and import controls. Looking into the future, we will continue to preserve, protect and defend all three pillars of Canada's supply management system. For this reason, in line with the spirit of the bill, the government has publicly committed that we will not provide any new market access for supply-managed products in future trade agreements. This policy has been clearly and publicly stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Bill C-282 would make this commitment even stronger. We have made this commitment and we will keep it. In fact, we demonstrated this most recently during the negotiation of the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement, which did not include any new access for cheese or other supply-managed products. Furthermore, the government believes that ensuring greater involvement of the public, stakeholders and parliamentarians in Canada's trade agenda strengthens the defence and promotion of our broader economic interests, including supply-managed sectors. As such, we have increased transparency in the conduct of trade negotiations and have enhanced reporting obligations to Parliament for new trade agreements. In November 2020, we updated the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament to provide additional opportunities for members of Parliament to review the objectives and economic merits of new trade agreements. Furthermore, in 2018, this government committed to fully and fairly compensate producers and processors of supply-managed commodities, including dairy, poultry and egg farmers, impacted by recent trade agreements. Our government will continue to preserve, protect and defend our supply management system in the context of any challenge by our trading partners. We are confident that Canada is fully compliant in the implementation of its trade obligations, and we will vigorously defend our interests. To close, let me reiterate the government's unequivocal commitment to maintain supply management as a pillar of strong and sustainable rural prosperity into the future. Bill C-282 is aligned with our commitment, and for this reason, we support it. The government is fully committed to defending the integrity of supply management while also continuing to pursue the ambitious trade agenda on which economic recovery depends.

618 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Feb/7/23 5:32:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Mr. Speaker, the first question I have when looking at this bill is, “Why did we end up here?” Why did we end up with a member who has to put forward legislation that would embed in legislation no further negotiation of access to supply-managed industries in Canada? The answer is that, after eight years of a Liberal government, the supply-managed sector in this country believes they have been failed and they are in need of additional protection. The Liberal government, in successive trade agreements, has continued to negotiate additional access to supply-managed industries here in Canada, and the industries have had enough. They have lost faith in the government. They are asking if someone could please put forward legislation that would protect them into the future. I one hundred per cent understand why they feel that way, because in trade deal after trade deal, more and more of their industry gets negotiated away by the Liberal government, which will stand up to say that it respects supply management and its pillars, but will then sign trade deals that do the exact opposite. A member in this Parliament has said, “Enough is enough,” and they have introduced this legislation. In Dufferin—Caledon, the number one driver of economic activity is the agricultural sector, and we have incredible dairy and poultry farms in my riding. I have had the pleasure of visiting and touring those farms on many occasions. Those farmers work extraordinarily hard to deliver the incredibly high-quality products into the Canadian market. Their biggest fear is what the government is going to do next to make their lives more difficult, whether it is tripling the carbon tax or the various other ways it makes farming more difficult. They are concerned. Farmers have reached out to me to say that they want this legislation to be supported so that they would know that, when the Liberal government negotiates a new trade deal, they would not find themselves giving up more and more market access, which makes it more and more difficult for them to run their farms. That is why we are here. It is another failure of the Liberal government to stand up for Canadians. In this case, it is Canadian farmers. From this side, I think this bill deserves to be studied. It should go to committee, so we could hear what the implications are of enacting something like this in statute. I know there are some in the agricultural sector who would say that they are not thrilled with this. I think we should hear from everyone. Let us hear what they all have to say to decide whether or not this is something that, as a Parliament, we should put forward. I want to come back to this being a pretty sad day to be here, when an industry in this country feels like the government does not have its back going into trade agreements and wants to stop the government from having the ability to even negotiate any further access. They have completely lost faith in the government. I have the same view as those in the dairy sector and all the supply-managed sectors. I have lost faith in the government as well. I look forward to this bill proceeding to committee, where it could be studied in great detail.

565 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 155