44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/8/23 4:11:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague, whom I know personally, and I know that she has lost her voice because of the current situation and the poor air quality. I know she went to bed early yesterday and had her hot milk. I understand that the situation affects everyone.
I would like to begin by highlighting the work of my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I know this is difficult for her. The fires are not under control. There are evacuations in Chibougamau and Chapais. I know this is a particularly tough time, so I want to say that we support these communities. My faithful squire, the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, and I will be pleased to welcome these people to our region. I know that they are currently travelling to Roberval, which is in the riding of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but I want to give him a hand to ensure that these people are properly welcomed, as will be the people from Lebel-sur-Quévillon.
When I look at today's motion and the current situation, I wonder what we need to do. What is the best response to support people who have been displaced? Preventing such events from happening in the future is the best response. To prevent them or, at the very least, mitigate them takes some political courage.
I have often heard the Prime Minister say that he would be there. It is a phrase he uses often. I have even heard him say they would be there to be there. That is quite something. However, being there means going beyond the rhetoric and actually doing something. I say that because when I hear a Conservative member, I disagree with him, but I know what to expect.
I remember that the Conservatives had an opposition day to celebrate oil. They said oil was irreplaceable. That is the vision of the Conservative Party, so I know what to expect. In the case of the Liberal Party, the problem is that, often, the Liberals are a bit like Conservatives who ignore each other. What I mean is that they have the same approach to the oil and gas issue, but they wrap it up in a nice little package. However, the candy inside is the same: unwavering support for the oil and gas industry.
This leads me to believe that there has to be a change in culture in Canadian politics. I see oil as such a strong symbol of identity in Canadian politics that no one is prepared to admit that this sector of economic activity creates enormous problems. It is similar to the gun issue in the United States. No one is prepared to say that staking it all on fossil fuels will create problems in the long-term that will cost us a fortune.
Let us look at what has happened over the past two years with the approval of the Bay du Nord project and the government's desire, which was again mentioned during oral question period, to drill oil wells in a marine refuge. This led the mischievous member for Mirabel to say that with Guilbeault, we will get our drilling licence. He copied Elvis Gratton's famous phrase, “With Groleau, I will get my liquor licence.”
It is just as ridiculous to hear the colonized Elvis Gratton speak about his future based on a liquor licence as it is to hear the Minister of Environment defend his decisions, which are incoherent if he is any sort of an environmentalist—but I'm not the one who came up with the comparison.
Let us continue in the same vein as the member for Mirabel. I find that the NDP is paying dearly for its dental insurance, because they have no choice but to support this government's positions and to vote for gag orders. Once again, this made the infamous member for Mirabel say that by spending so much time at the Liberals' feet, the New Democrats are going to get oral thrush, that little problem that can affect our toe nails.
When I think of the oil and gas sector, I think of a bottomless public money pit.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. In last year's budget, there was $2.6 billion for developing carbon capture and storage technologies. Businesses said that if we wanted to take that route then 75% of the cost associated with these new technologies needed to be assumed by the governments. What a sham.
They are trying to develop low-carbon oil. The government is defending that by bringing in programs. There are two major carbon sequestration projects and 57% of the money funding those two major projects is public money. There is also the emissions reduction fund, which was introduced during the pandemic. In the end, we read in a report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development that this fund did everything but reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector.
Then, there is Oil Change International who told us that Canada gives 14 times more in subsidies to fossil fuels than to clean energy. That is 14.5 times more subsidies to fossil fuels than to clean energy when the average for the majority of G20 countries is barely 2.5.
If we, by which I mean everyone but me, take a look at ourselves, we see that Canada is the country with the worst track record when it comes to supporting the oil and gas industry. That is not to mention all of the talk about blue hydrogen. We no longer want to talk about so-called blue hydrogen. We are going to take gas and make hydrogen using carbon capture technology. That hydrogen will supposedly be a source of clean, renewable energy. Only experts in the gas industry could say such a thing.
They are taking it even further than that. SMR technologies were designed to meet the needs of the gas industry so that it could use less gas in its processes and sell that gas. We thought that SMR technologies might be the solution.
The Canadian federation is caught in a stranglehold because most of the funding allocated to economic development goes to the oil and gas industry. On average, the EDC invests about $14 billion a year in that sector.
It is difficult to provide accurate figures because we do not know how the government defines fossil fuel subsidies. During the election campaign, Minister Guilbeault said—
1109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:20:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I sincerely apologize. I am a respectful man, and yet I still made a mistake.
During the election campaign, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said he planned to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. This is 2023, and the government still cannot define what it considers to be an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy. It cannot even define what a subsidy is. It simply does not have the courage.
Speaking of courage, the latest on the list is the much-touted just transition. Apparently, the government no longer wants to use the term “just transition”, because it could be used in a play on words with the Prime Minister's first name. The government now prefers to talk about sustainable employment. What a show of courage. If Canada does not have the courage to use a term, a concept, that is used internationally, how are we going to implement measures that require courage? The government does not even have the will to use the correct term.
The cherry on top is Trans Mountain. The bill for that is now $30 billion. I would remind the House that the government's post-COVID‑19 recovery plan, which was supposed to be green, was $17 billion. A single oil project has cost $30 billion. It is nonsense, especially when the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated many times that we would never make a penny on this project. It is a money-losing venture.
The government's promise was to take the profits generated by Trans Mountain and reinvest them in clean energy. There will be no profits. They will not exist. We are trapped in this box.
I will be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.
292 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:22:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the only big contradiction that I see, is that of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and the former NDP leader who said that the Energy East pipeline was a win-win-win. Had there been an NDP government, there would have been a pipeline from western Canada to Quebec. That is a bloody contradiction.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:24:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, had my colleague listened carefully to my presentation, he would know that I said at the beginning that we need to work on prevention.
If we want to prevent these very intense forest fires, we have to think about more than just how to fight them. We have to think about how to prevent them. If we want to prevent these forest fires, we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. That has to be understood. That is the starting point.
If we continue to court disaster by producing more oil and gas, we will have to allocate phenomenal amounts of money to fight climate change in the next 20 years. That is what we must deal with. That is the strategy that we must put in place.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 4:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it makes no sense.
Since 2022, the gluttonous oil and gas sector has been reaping record profits: ExxonMobil made $56 billion, Shell made $40 billion and TotalEnergies made $36 billion. In 2008, their oil refining margins went from 9.4¢ to 48.2¢.
We cannot be supporting these big oil companies with public money. As the member for Mirabel has repeatedly said, at some point, we will realize we have been shafted.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 5:31:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:26:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, I wondered where she was getting her information.
In another life, I taught at a university. In a course on social policy, we took a close look at the role of child care and the child care system in Quebec. Several analysts said that the transformative impact on society was unimaginable. Women returned to the workforce, single mothers managed to find a job, children arrived at school without language delays. To hear my colleague, there could be nothing worse than having a public child care system.
I wonder if the thing that bothers her is the fact that this promotes a model other than the traditional family where the mother stays at home and takes care of the children. I wonder.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Joliette for giving me such a fine introduction. If I had the misfortune to cough during his presentation, it is because my eloquence pales in comparison to his. I was somewhat nervous. I hope he will forgive me.
The Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑33 on the grounds that rail activities need to be constantly regulated and inspected. To begin, let us remember that Bill C‑33 seeks to modernize the different laws on railways, ports and transportation of goods. The provisions in Bill C‑33 follow the recommendations of the supply chain task force, which was formed in March 2022 by the Minister of Transport.
The task force's mandate was to study the recent supply chain disruptions, namely the COVID‑19 pandemic, climate change and floods in British Columbia. I would like to take a look, with my colleagues, at some of the task force's mandates and perhaps come back to a problem that currently exists in Quebec. The task force's mandate includes the following:
...examine pressing supply chain congestion and fluidity issues in the Canadian and global contexts [and assess] the range of impacts on Canada's economy, including on the volume and value of trade and the capacity of infrastructure assets to accommodate trends in flows;
[note] collaborative opportunities to support a resilient North American and global trade network and address congestion by accounting for actions taken or considered by like-minded countries;
[work] with experts and partners in the Canadian and global contexts to identify structural weaknesses, policy or regulatory impediments, and/or market power imbalances that impact competition in modal and multi-modal sectors;...
[and, finally, establish] areas of action/recommendations that could be directed to federal and other levels of government and industry, to reduce congestion and improve the fluid and predictable operation of transportation supply chains.
The task force's mandates highlight the importance of making our supply chain fluid. Many people in Quebec noted a problem that may be unique to Quebec: access to railcars. Access to railcars has become very difficult. That is what I heard from people in the forestry sector, especially people at Chantiers Chibougamau, who are going through a very tough time. Our thoughts are with them.
In case some of my colleagues get the opportunity to go to Chibougamau someday, I just want to mention that the glued-laminated timber structures made by Chantiers Chibougamau are really spectacular. Unfortunately, they cannot use CN cars because access is restricted. That is also the case for Resolute Forest Products and many businesses working in the forestry sector.
In the next few months, these people will emerge from a significant crisis. We are not talking about that today, which is okay given that we are focusing on our efforts to support the people who have been evacuated from their homes. However, once the fires are put out and we get back to normal, we will realize that a lot of very expensive equipment was destroyed by the fires, and this will weaken the forestry sector, which is already suffering because of the ongoing trade dispute with the United States.
If we add to that the recurring logistics problems that these people have getting access to railcars, then things get even more difficult for them. The problem of accessing railcars was pointed out some time ago. Logistics experts at Resolute Forest Products showed me the losses they incur by not having access to railcars.
I think that the panel's mandate mentioned this idea of fluidity, but, unfortunately, we are not quite there yet. Even though certain critiques have been formulated and certain problems have been identified, it must be said that the bill responds to several recommendations from the task force's report, and we believe that a number of the measures in the bill will help improve railway safety.
The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of secure areas to reduce congestion at ports, the creation of a monetary penalty regime for safety violations, the strengthening of safety management systems and the prohibition on damaging railway structures or interfering with railway operations. However, if the bill is referred to committee, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the proposed measures do not place a disproportionate administrative burden on small ports such as the Port of Saguenay, which is thriving these days.
I would like to come back, as my colleague from Joliette did, to the specific case of Lac‑Mégantic. I am sure that everyone remembers where they were on July 6, that fateful day, when the train came tearing down the hill near Lac‑Mégantic at 1:15 in the morning and derailed. It exploded in the middle of the town. When members are not busy, in the evening perhaps, I recommend that they watch Alexis Durand-Brault's TV series, which is quite interesting, as well as Philippe Falardeau's documentary, which shows the full scope of the tragedy and the way it left many people forever scarred.
These permanent scars could have been avoided with a bypass addressing the criticisms of Lac‑Mégantic residents. Unfortunately, last February, Public Services and Procurement Canada tore up the agreements it had signed with 17 landowners in Lac-Mégantic, Nantes and Frontenac and decided to forcibly expropriate their property instead. The federal government decided to expropriate these 17 landowners, even though, I must point out, it had already come to mutual agreements. This option allows it to avoid having to take into account the challenge led by UPA de l'Estrie and the authorization required from Quebec's Commission de protection du territoire agricole, which must be decided by Quebec's administrative tribunal.
The approach taken by the government on this issue is quite simply appalling. It is a bit of a cowboy approach. The ink was not yet dry on the agreements it had just reached when it promptly turned around and reneged on them. This is consistent with how the federal government has handled the rail bypass file over the past 10 years, sometimes in a disrespectful, expeditious and, dare I say, inhumane and perfidious manner.
The people of Lac‑Mégantic have already suffered enough because of this tragedy. The federal government must not add insult to injury by expropriating them in spite of signed agreements. After dragging its feet on the bypass project for a decade, and with the 10th anniversary of the disaster right around the corner, Ottawa, with typical arrogance, prefers to push everyone else around to make up for lost time, rather than do the right thing. This is certainly not the way to win back the trust of the people of Lac‑Mégantic.
The Bloc Québécois asked the government to take note of the fact that Quebec has its own legal processes and decision-making bodies, and in no way should they be ignored or circumvented by the federal government on the bypass file. Our political party also wishes to point out the importance of the Lac‑Mégantic bypass, which is much more than an ordinary infrastructure project. Rather, it is a social healing project. Consequently, if the government wants it to succeed, it must act respectfully towards residents.
1248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:57:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say there is still a bit of work to be done, especially on small ports. That was pointed out earlier. I think the committee will also have some issues to address, such as how hard it is for us to get certain railcars in Quebec.
If the goal is to make our supply chains more fluid, we cannot do so just for the oil and gas sector. We also have to do it for other economic sectors. Difficulty getting railcars seems common among forestry stakeholders.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:59:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Joliette pointed out in his speech earlier, the Mégantic tragedy happened in part because there was only one train conductor.
I am sure the committee will do that work. It will have to hear from workers' representatives too. That awareness is important. I quite agree with my colleague.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 9:00:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is such a relevant question.
Indeed, if members can recall, there was the announcement in Montreal concerning work to be done in the tunnel. We expected there would be massive congestion in the years to come. It is in this context that the people from Chantiers Chibougamau informed me that since they would not have access to those railcars, they would add between 35 and 60 trucks per day to Montreal's highway system.
Besides the fairly large logistical problem for these businesses, there is also the environmental cost to pay for putting more trucks on the road because of failed logistics. There is a fairly large economic cost for Quebec's businesses.
From what I have heard, this problem would be unique to Quebec because in Ontario a railcar shortage would not be felt in the same way.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
