44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/14/23 11:13:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues for their unwavering support. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
As usual, our esteemed Conservative colleagues have decided to repeat their usual mantra, which is to repeat, repeat, repeat something over and over in the hope that voters will come to believe it.
First of all, if the Conservatives want to talk numbers, they should start by double-checking theirs. Let us be clear: The seven years, three months and nine days that this Liberal government has been in power should not be rounded up to eight years, as the Conservatives repeat seven times in their motion, but down to seven. They need to remember the importance of accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.
The teacher in me would say that, simply put, the motion does contain some truthful statements about the state of the economy, but the Conservatives' proposals are pretty shaky and they would fail economics 101.
Let us take a look at their motion from the beginning. The Prime Minister has many faults, as the majority of the House would agree, but he is not responsible for the entire economic situation. He is not that competent.
Today's motion addresses an important issue, which is that the difficult economic context and inflation are real problems that are making life difficult for many Quebeckers and Canadians. It is true that groceries are more expensive, mortgage costs make home ownership far too expensive in some cases, and rents and gas prices have also risen.
The Bloc Québécois agrees that these are critical issues. However, eliminating taxes is not going to solve inflation.
Let us consider the causes of inflation. Supply chain issues arose during the pandemic, Russia invaded Ukraine, and the pandemic was followed by rapid economic recovery and overheating. The labour shortage also contributed to inflation. A lot of different factors are involved. There was also a return to interventionist policies around the globe, in places like Europe, the United States and Canada, to fuel the economic recovery that everyone in the House is hoping to see.
Do the Conservatives think that taxes cause inflation? Just look at our neighbours to the south. They have far fewer taxes, yet they are still experiencing inflation.
As I have explained to the House before, the conduct of budgetary policy consists mainly of choosing the right level of taxes for the right level of spending, while ensuring quality public services. I think we can all agree that that is not really happening right now.
This is a detailed exercise that requires nuance. Unfortunately, nuance is in short supply around here. One of the most important aspects of good government is the sound, intelligent management of taxes.
Contrary to what is proposed here, drastic tax cuts do not constitute a reasonable and effective budgetary policy. However, reckless spending is no better. The government needs to play an important role in the economy.
Let us remember that a government's main tool is its ability to collect and distribute funds. When we take away the government's ability to collect funds, we directly limit its ability to invest in the economy.
Let us take a look at the solutions proposed in the Conservatives\ motion. First, they suggest firing “high-priced consultants”. If they had stopped there, we probably would have been in agreement. It is true that the Quebec government hires consultants, but never to the extent that the federal government has done it in recent years. There is not just McKinsey, but also IBM, PwC and Deloitte. Many companies are being paid exorbitant amounts by the federal government, for no discernible reason. Their services are not superior. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Second, the Conservative motion proposes cutting waste and capping spending. As I mentioned, a good government knows how to levy taxes and how to spend them effectively. We can agree that some taxes are necessary for sound economic management. A good government knows how to do both. That is not the case here. I could give plenty of examples of exorbitant and useless spending items that could be cut, but spending does not play a role in the inflation we are facing today.
Now let us look at the final section, where the Conservatives suggesting eliminating inflationary deficits and taxes. If we read between the lines, this proposal is really about eliminating the carbon tax. The Conservatives have been repeating this message in the House for months now, and it is wrong.
776 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 11:19:24 a.m.
- Watch
Let me take a moment to talk about what a carbon tax is.
It is an example of an effective tax. Remember that, by 2014, Quebec already had a cap-and-trade system, but it was forced to partner with California because there was no interest in Canada, except for the Ontario government, which later changed its mind. That is what happened. We had to partner with California to implement a proper system that works. We have the figures to prove that the system works.
Quebec has already shouldered its responsibilities when it comes to fighting climate change. I will give a small but important example to demonstrate how well these measures are working. By 2015, Quebec had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8.8% over 1990 levels. Putting a price on GHG emissions works.
If the Conservatives agree that we need to fight climate change, and I am really eager to hear one of them say so, they need to propose solutions. A carbon tax, like a cap-and-trade system, is a solution that works, because it also follows the rules of the market. They should be happy about that, but they are not. Why not? It is because the oil lobby is too important to the Conservative Party.
Remember, too, that the cost of climate change is higher than the cost of taking action to fight climate change. It is a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Let us talk about the high costs of climate change.
First, there are the health costs. Scientists all agree that the increasingly frequent heat waves will mostly affect the most vulnerable, such as seniors and newborns. People will die. People are already dying, but it will happen more and more. Second, there are zoonotic diseases. As temperatures rise, vector-borne diseases such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus are moving north and spreading throughout southern Canada and Quebec. These diseases cost society money. Lastly, even allergies have costs in terms of productivity and have an impact on the economy.
In terms of infrastructure, more and more floods are happening, including flash floods and ice-jam flooding. There are enormous costs associated with these types of floods, and they are becoming more frequent as a result of climate change.
There is also the matter of permafrost. Reserves in northern Canada and Quebec are being forced to rebuild their infrastructure. The loss of permafrost, which is melting as a result of climate change, is jeopardizing their infrastructure. Entire cities and villages have to be rebuilt. Another way climate change is affecting infrastructure is through erosion. Along the shores of the St. Lawrence and other rivers in Quebec and Canada, roads and villages need to be moved, because erosion due to climate change has a tremendous impact on the economy.
Now that I have demonstrated that the costs are high, we may be able to finally agree on the fact that levying a simple tax on greenhouse gas emissions makes a little sense. The cost-benefit analysis is simple. Why does the Conservative Party insist on denying the facts?
If they want solutions for curbing inflation and cutting wasteful public spending, that is great. We can start by reforming the competitive system. The federal government has an annoying habit of encouraging monopolies. Several companies in Canada, especially in the transportation and telecommunications sectors, have few competitors, and their fees are among the highest in the world. If we want to give consumers a break, we could perhaps start by lowering prices, which are currently far too high.
What will we say to major companies like Rogers and Shaw, which are awaiting a final decision from the government? “Yes, prices will go up, but that is not a problem. Let us avoid reforming the competitive system at all costs because that would make lobbyists unhappy.”
Essentially, we have a totally obsolete competitive system. How come ministers have the power to decide whether companies can sign agreements that conflict with the Competition Bureau's rulings? It makes no sense. Instead of stirring up anger, which is not helpful, let us stop and propose practical solutions, as the Bloc Québécois is used to doing.
704 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 11:24:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, I believe that the social safety net is essential. That is what we have in Quebec, and we are often considered models of social democracy around the world.
However, I believe that the federal government is in a poor position to help the most vulnerable members of society because it just throws money around. Unfortunately, it only duplicates work already being done. For example, we do not need an employment insurance system managed by Canada, particularly when it is very badly managed by Canada. We should simply have one system in Quebec that actually works.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 11:25:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, let us set the record straight: Quebec does not need natural gas at this time. We have hydroelectric power, which works quite well.
We could export it. However, natural gas is a fossil fuel and there is a purchase option for this type of natural resource, as Bernard Landry said.
For now, we do not know all the potential effects of natural gas on the environment. Why would we use resources that are not necessarily good for the environment when we can develop our own resources, as we do with hydroelectricity in Quebec?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 11:27:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Joliette, is working very hard on the issue of tax havens. Oddly enough, we never see the Liberals working hard on the issue of tax havens. Once again, there is patronage involved and, clearly, some measures are not effective. There is waste, including money sent to tax havens, and quite frankly that is shameful.
I agree that we must fight tax havens. As I said in my speech, we must make better use of the resources we have. That is what a good, well-functioning government does.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 12:59:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I am in a good mood.
I thank my colleague for his speech. He mentioned the Liberal government's great generosity several times, but what about health transfers? What about the money that has been owed to us for years?
Our health care system is underfunded, and yet the Government of Canada's own health department gets billions of dollars in funding even though it manages not a single nurse, hospital or doctor and does not provide any care whatsoever.
When will we get the health transfers that Quebec deserves?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 1:32:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we hear my hon. colleague talk incessantly about cutting spending, cutting taxes, making cuts everywhere.
When will we hear that member call for cuts to fossil fuel subsidies?
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
