44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2023 02:00PM
- Jun/21/23 2:46:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the environmental motion that the Bloc Québécois got the House to adopt was about the forest fires.
The Prime Minister himself supported the motion, which recognizes that the federal government must do more to combat climate change. I would like to remind him how he voted before we talk about oil and gas. Right now, his government is assessing whether it will approve 16 Suncor projects to drill for oil off the coast of Newfoundland.
Does the Prime Minister agree that doing more to combat climate change also means saying no to these types of oil and gas projects?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 7:18:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I joined the debate 15 or 20 minutes ago. I heard part of my colleague's speech. I would like to take him back to what we call the “fiscal imbalance” and what I could also call “federal paternalism”. This refers to the fact that the federal government uses the money it has and its own spending to impose its own choices on Quebec.
What does my colleague think about federal paternalism? I imagine that he must support it.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 7:51:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to say that the motion paints an accurate picture of the difficulties faced by Canadians and Quebeckers. However, there is a problem with the solution. For the Conservatives, the solution is to eliminate deficits. They think that when the deficits are eliminated, all the problems will be magically solved: The cost of housing will drop, and households will have less debt. We really do not agree with that.
We are going to vote in favour of the need to table a plan to return to balanced budgets. We agree with that because governing requires planning. To govern is to anticipate. Tabling a plan to return to balanced budgets is the least a government can do. However, we do not agree with the measures that the Conservative Party is promising to take. Eliminating the carbon tax is the wrong thing to do. I would even say that it should be increased.
Could the Conservative Party propose more realistic solutions?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 8:08:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I would like to talk to him about something he did not cover, namely the fiscal imbalance. The Liberal government has too much money for its budget items, so it is spending like there is no tomorrow in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Then it tells us it has no money for critical expenses like health transfers.
I hope no one will try to tell me that Quebec and the provinces wanted it this way. In classic style, they were given no alternative.
What does my colleague think about the fiscal imbalance?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 8:39:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to make a few suggestions to my colleague.
When he was finishing his speech, he said that he only had one minute left and that he wanted to speak about revenues. The Conservatives talk about returning to balanced budgets, which is the right thing to do, but I would like to know how they will do that. Their speeches indicate that they want to embrace austerity. I have a few suggestions for my colleague that will not require austerity and will generate a lot of revenue. For example, funding and the extension of Trans Mountain could stop immediately. More than $30 billion has been spent on that project. We could also fight tax havens. To govern is to plan and anticipate.
It is right and conscientious to have a plan to return to balanced budgets. However, will that happen? How will we achieve balanced budgets?
What does my colleague think of my two suggestions?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:56:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party stated in its motion what is wrong, and I think it has a good read on the situation. The problem is the solutions it proposes, because it seems to think they would magically solve all the problems.
I want to talk about one problem in particular, and that is the price of oil. History has shown us that the biggest factor in price fluctuations is the price of oil, over which we have no control. It is a global price. It depends on wars, like the war in Ukraine. It depends on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which just said it is going to reduce output. It depends on all sorts of things.
Does the member not think that the best way to stabilize prices would be to end our dependence on oil as soon as possible?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 10:24:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing you and all my colleagues here in the House a wonderful summer.
Regarding my colleague's speech, I would like to share one of the conclusions reached by the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation, which has analyzed federal spending since 2015. It found that “the current trend is toward a more directive and less collaborative use of the spending power....Partnership seems to be conditional on a province accepting the federal government's policy vision”.
I would call that federal paternalism. In other words, if the provinces want money, they have to do what the federal government wants. The federal government can behave this way because it has too much revenue for its budget items.
I would like my colleague to comment on the fiscal imbalance, which is precisely why the government is increasing its initiatives in areas of jurisdiction that are not its own.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
