44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/1/23 11:14:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the champion of the environment, the hon. member for Repentigny.
I am going to do something I rarely do. I am going to make an aside, because today is my son’s birthday; my loyal equerry is 22 years old. My son is studying political science, and I thought that the best gift I could give him was to use one of his university papers. No one will be surprised to hear that the paper was on populism. Everyone will see me coming right away: I feel like the motion before us here today is more populist rhetoric than actual political debate.
I would like to use the reading grid my son presented in his paper. He gives the simplest definition of populism as being the act of developing a simplistic solution to a complex problem. In my opinion, saying that the carbon tax is responsible for today’s inflation is a simplistic solution to a complex problem.
Once again based on the vast knowledge of my son, Émile Simard, populism can also be defined as the political tendency to create division, to simplify and to exacerbate differences of opinion. Later on I will talk about some of the discourse used by the leader of the official opposition. Members will once again see this tendency to create division, to simplify and to exacerbate differences of opinion.
Populism can also be defined as the discourse and behaviours of persons who use rhetoric that combines reality with demagoguery, and that turn the people against ideological adversaries or existing institutions. Lastly, it can be said that all forms of populism berate institutions that do not sufficiently take popular aspirations into account. Populism caricatures political adversaries as elites who are not interested in taking the people’s ideas and popular wisdom into account.
Let us start there and analyze the proposal contained in the Conservatives’ motion today. Populism revolves around populist themes. One of these themes we often see relates to purchasing power. This is telling people that, thanks to the political action of one party, they will have more money in their pockets. The notion of purchasing power is the focus of our Conservative colleagues’ motion. Another populist theme is mistrust of science. Climate change was made up by scientists. Another theme is the irrational need to defend the fossil fuel industry, which, as we know, contributes significantly to climate change.
The Conservatives have tabled a motion here today that is textbook populism. It uses the inflationary context to advance their goal of antagonizing the members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois, who recognize that measures must be put in place to fight climate change. They are also trying to advance the agenda of the oil companies.
Let us be honest for a moment and say, right from the start, that those who are not populist and remain rational understand that there is no second carbon tax. What the Conservatives are talking about are the clean fuel regulations, which aim to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels. As a result, we can say that the Conservative discourse linking this policy to the current purchasing power crisis is populist; it is doomsday rhetoric aimed at demonizing the energy transition.
Let us say right from the start that the carbon tax that the Conservatives are talking about does not affect Quebec, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. It must also be said that, for many years, the Conservatives have demonized the carbon tax. That was already the case under Mr. Harper. The goal is to score political points in the short term, which is another basic characteristic of populism.
It must also be said that, at the last Conservative convention, 54% of Conservative Party members rejected the existence of climate change. So more than half of Conservative Party members do not believe that climate change is real.
To counterbalance that, I recall that the hon. member for Durham, the former Conservative leader, had said that he wanted to put a price on carbon. I do not know what led to the carbon tax becoming a key issue for the Conservative Party. At the last election, we had a leader who said that we should still have a tax on pollution.
In my view, the Conservatives are using the Parliamentary Budget Officer because it suits them today, but we rarely hear them when the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us about a phenomenon as important as the fiscal imbalance. I rarely hear the Conservatives say that they will use an opposition day to study this scourge of the Canadian federation that is the fiscal imbalance. Of course, if we synthesize all that, we are faced with simplistic solutions to the complex problem of inflation.
There is a problem that none of my Conservative colleagues have mentioned. I do not want to address the real problem, because then I would be guilty of populism myself. The problem no one has mentioned is the problem of Canada, which continues to increase the production of dirty oil and tar sands, an unconventional and polluting type of oil. This is the problem we need to tackle today in this federation if we want to fight climate change, which will have a considerable impact on the economy.
What my Conservative friends also often forget is that, historically, what has contributed the most to price fluctuations are fluctuations in the price of oil. We have seen that on numerous occasions. The gluttonous oil companies, which are forever increasing their margins, are earning record profits. We saw that during and after the pandemic. We need to ask these gluttonous oil companies, which are earning record profits, to make an extra effort, and not blame the carbon tax. This distorts reality.
There are ways to fight inflation. I will mention one in particular: increasing retirees' fixed incomes. We have been calling on the government to increase the OAS and GIS for quite some time now. I would have liked to hear my Conservative colleagues talk about that.
This brings me to the favourite topic of the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition. I have heard the opposition leader denounce “wokeness” on numerous occasions. On a trip to Quebec, he said that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party are woke parties. Here is a quote that made me laugh. While in Montreal, the Conservative leader said:
The Liberals and their woke buddies from the Plateau Mont-Royal are waging a war on cars. So, having listened to the common sense of the people from the Quebec City region, allow me to send an equally clear message: A Poilievre government will not fund a third link without lanes reserved for cars.
“Good common sense” is a populist term. When someone uses those words, they are usually a populist. Let us not forget the ultimate populist theme: driving. The woke are against driving. What is really funny is that the leader of Conservative Party was rebuked by Quebec's premier, who said that it was not the Liberal federal government that put an end to the third link, it was Quebec. The leader of the Conservative Party was rebuked.
I will conclude by saying that I am going to use a little populist discourse myself. Those we consider woke in Quebec are generally those who are against Bill 21, the secularism law, and Bill 96, the French language law. I know that the leader of the Conservative Party is against both these laws.
Is the Conservative Party a woke party because it is against Bills 21 and 96? That is what I want to know. Perhaps my son can give me an answer on his next birthday.
1316 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 11:25:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the Conservatives' proposal is a simplistic solution to a complex problem.
Where I disagree somewhat with my Liberal colleague is that, in my view, the best way to fight inflation is to support those who do not earn very much. I immediately think of retirees. The Liberal Party has never wanted to increase the OAS and GIS. It created two classes of seniors. The best way to fight inflation would be to support seniors.
I also do not agree with him on the dental care system, which creates a lot of unfairness in Quebec because we already have a dental care system. We lose big under in this system.
I do not completely agree with him, but I am prepared to say that the Conservatives have a simplistic solution to a serious problem.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 11:27:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I entirely follow where my colleague is going with this. I have never heard of a tax that would apply to the forestry sector because a tree sequesters carbon.
He asked me to provide a definition of populism. To me, it is quite clear. It refers to politicians who try to oversimplify certain issues, sow division and create antagonism without listening to reason, to common sense, to science.
The science shows that climate change is going to cost us a fortune. If we listen to the science, then we should try to prepare for this looming threat and put in place measures such as carbon pricing. It is as simple as that.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 11:29:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to be clear, the Bloc Québécois's objective is to stand up for the interests of Quebec in the House.
I often get the impression that the objective of the Conservative Party, which is the bloc of the west, is to stand up for the interests of the oil companies in this chamber. The Conservatives often try to distort reality by claiming carbon pricing is one of the causes of inflation, since carbon pricing has repercussions for big oil. That is unbelievably stupid.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:02:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the National Assembly unanimously demanded the disclosure of documents from the Grenier commission. Let us not forget that this commission had found that the federal government had engaged in illegal spending during the 1995 referendum.
The National Assembly is missing some key documents from the federal government. Ottawa is still refusing to disclose these archives. The heritage minister was asked to collaborate, but instead he accused the four parties in Quebec City of living in the past. Let us give him another chance. We are good people.
For the 125 elected members of the National Assembly, will he open his archives?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 3:04:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a lack of respect for the National Assembly.
In history and in relationships, the one who tells the other that they are trying to pick a fight is usually the guilty party. Everyone knows that. The federal government is the one that has been accused of illegal financing here.
The National Assembly is unanimous. It voted last Thursday to investigate the illegal financing, not last year. We are not living in the past. We are talking about last Thursday.
Will the minister play fair, respect the National Assembly, which is unanimous, and open their archives?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 4:09:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it hard to listen to my Conservative colleagues talk about carbon taxes and people who are struggling to feed themselves and have to rely on food banks.
I find it hard because I have heard the member for Carleton, the leader of the official opposition, say on numerous occasions that some people are going to food banks and asking for medical assistance in dying. To say such ridiculous things reflects poorly on the member and his credibility. It is hard to believe that the Conservatives really want to help people who are struggling.
Personally, I do not know anyone who goes to a food bank and asks for medical assistance in dying. This empty rhetoric could be hurtful to people who really are requesting MAID. Can my colleague comment on that?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
