44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2023 10:00AM
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-354, An Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act (Quebec’s cultural distinctiveness and French-speaking communities).
He said: Mr. Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois like to stress that a nation must not leave its own culture in the hands of its neighbour. That is exactly why I am tabling this bill today.
This bill provides that the CRTC must consult the Government of Quebec before regulating any aspect that relates to the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec. It responds to a formal request made by the Government of Quebec during the debates around Bill C-11 for a mandatory and official mechanism for consulting the Government of Quebec.
This bill is also in line with the House's recognition of Quebec as a nation. It is a constructive response to the disturbing decision made by the federal government last year to end the long-standing practice of alternating between francophone and anglophone chairs of the CRTC.
The bill also provides that provincial governments must be consulted before regulations are made that concern French-speaking markets. That will no doubt be well received by every francophile in Canada and every advocate for cultural diversity in a broader sense.
214 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased to rise in the House this morning because I am feeling confident. My party whip complimented me on my perfect hair before I rose to speak, so I am feeling really good about speaking to Bill C-49 this morning.
The Bloc Québécois will take a careful look at the principles of Bill C‑49. It goes without saying that we will want to examine this bill more closely in committee. However, before I get into the nitty-gritty of the bill, I want to mention a few problems that I noticed with it.
The first has to do with provincial jurisdictions. Personally, I would not want the federal government to have control over the management of Canada's natural resources. We know that natural resource management is a provincial responsibility. However, when we look carefully at this bill, we see that, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have agreed that offshore waters fall under federal jurisdiction. There is therefore no breach.
I think it is important to point that out, because the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill on environmental assessments that states that such assessments should fall under Quebec's jurisdiction and that what happens within Quebec's borders should be specifically assessed by Quebec. That is one thing.
I do not think there is any dispute about areas of jurisdiction in this bill. That is also important because my riding is home to the Saguenay waterway, and the federal government published a study that said that traffic on the Saguenay waterway should be restricted. I did not want to end up in a situation where I had to defend something that would go against the legitimate right of Quebec and the provinces to have their jurisdictions respected.
Before moving on to Bill C-49 itself, I would like to go over the context. That is a bit like what the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources did earlier in his speech. He went over the context. This summer, we experienced the worst wildfires in the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean and Abitibi regions. I have colleagues from Abitibi who were affected all summer by this awful situation. They had to support many people in their community.
Wildfires are a symptom of climate change. Droughts are getting longer and more intense and starting earlier. This makes forest conditions ripe for wildfires. To deny that would be heresy, in my view. I say this because I believe public decision-makers have a duty to act responsibly, particularly in the context of the climate crisis. That is the theme that the Bloc Québécois has adopted for this new parliamentary session.
What does acting responsibly in the context of the climate crisis mean? For one thing, it means listening to the science. If someone cannot listen to the science, then at the very least, they should not lie. Politicians should not lie to the population. The people of Alberta should not be led to believe that things can go on as before and that they can keep extracting oil from the oil sands forever. Albertans should not be lied to. Most importantly, Quebeckers should not be lied to.
There is a lie that is being perpetuated. I hear it here every day. It is about the infamous carbon tax. Let me repeat, there is no carbon tax that applies to Quebec. Quebec has its own carbon pricing. The only carbon tax applies to the rest of Canada, and what my Conservative colleagues are referring to is actually a fuel standard. The Conservatives themselves once tried to implement a similar clean fuel standard.
Going back to the context, it should be obvious that we are facing a climate crisis. That climate crisis must be addressed by respecting science and, above all, by not lying. I can promise you, Madam Speaker, that I will not lie.
To give a slightly more detailed picture of the current context, let me remind members how reliant Canada is on fossil fuels. For me, the first thing that comes to mind is that over $30 billion was spent on a pipeline. That is a lot. That is over $30 billion for a piece of infrastructure that will serve the greedy oil and gas industry. I will come back to that later.
Since 2015, I have often heard the Liberal government cite the fight against climate change as an excuse to spend billions of dollars of public money on the pipe dream of making oil sands development cleaner. The government hopes to extend the lifespan of the oil sands.
Now it is telling us that low-carbon oil is on the way. The government is sparing no effort to make it happen. I would simply remind my colleagues of the emissions reduction fund that was created during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was anything but what its name suggested. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that the fund had not reduced emissions after all. I would also refer my colleagues to the emissions reduction fund's $675‑million onshore program, especially with respect to the case at hand.
According to conservative figures from 2022, the federal government provided no less than $20 billion in support to the oil and gas sector, that is, the fossil fuel sector. Subsidies for bogus solutions are being perpetuated in the pursuit of the new fantasy of carbon capture and sequestration strategies. The most recent budget included tax credits for the production of blue hydrogen, which is hydrogen derived from natural gas with carbon sequestration. Several experts have indicated that it is unattainable in these volumes, and yet huge subsidies are still being paid out to the oil and gas sector.
Meanwhile, looking at 2022, since 2023 is not yet over, the figures show that the oil and gas sector posted record profits. In 2022, Exxon recorded record profits of $56 billion, Shell made $40 billion, TotalEnergies made $36 billion, Chevron made $36 billion, and BP made $27 billion, for a total of $220 billion. Why am I sharing those figures? It is because it seems clear to me, and I think it is clear to all my colleagues, that when it comes to energy, Canada is trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold and cannot escape the idea of it. No one seems capable of thinking outside the box.
Let us come back to Bill C‑49. I am not saying that the Bloc Québécois is not going to support this bill, but there is still a lot of work to be done. If the government wants to convince us of the merits of Bill C‑49, then it needs to demonstrate that the bill is truly for the benefit of the energy transition. Perhaps we will talk a bit later about the name of the bill we are trying to change. Slogans and changes to the names of organizations are not going to convince the public, who no longer trusts the government to fight climate change. The bill needs to set out a plan to gradually reduce offshore oil and gas production and set an end date to the issuing of permits for new drilling projects.
Generally speaking, if we go back to what is in Bill C‑49, we see that it aims to modernize the administrative regime and management of the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. I understand that there are no contentious aspects from a jurisdictional management perspective, but I would say that even though the bill refers to future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely offshore wind energy off Canada's coasts, which is what I was saying to the minister this morning, the fact remains that the primary objective is oil and gas development, which our party has consistently denounced.
It is a bill that talks about clean energy, but what is hidden under this clean energy is still oil and gas development projects. It is not all doom and gloom, however. There are some interesting elements in this bill. However, many issues remain unresolved, particularly with respect to meeting conservation requirements for marine biodiversity, which we can see when we look at the part of the bill that deals the renewable energy development in eastern Canada. The same goes with respect to tightening the rules governing oil and gas development activities, although they should simply no longer exist.
I see that the stated purpose of offshore wind power development is to produce hydrogen for export. Is that an attempt to soften the current narrative around hydrogen? The fact remains that the Government of Canada's strategy on hydrogen is to produce gas-based hydrogen. At the end of the day, the amount that would be produced from wind power is negligible compared to the targeted production amounts for blue hydrogen.
I know that the minister does not like talking about colours when it comes to hydrogen. However, blue hydrogen requires a carbon capture technology that is not quite ready and the government is investing a lot of money in that.
My party and I believe that, in the context of the energy transition, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector should decline quickly. The non-renewable energy sector's decline may well be an area that requires further clarification in the bill.
We therefore do not think that any new offshore oil and gas export or development project should be permitted, regardless of the specific conditions associated with it. As a friendly reminder to my friends in the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP, the path that Quebec is currently taking could quite possibly start a trend in the maritime provinces and Canada. We all know that Quebec put a firm and definite stop to oil and gas exploration and development in its territory by passing an act ending exploration for petroleum and production of petroleum and brine. The act also seeks to eliminate public funding for these activities.
Within the limits of its jurisdiction and in light of the current climate crisis, a responsible government could therefore decide to end oil and gas development. It has been done before. A nation did it before, and that nation was Quebec. The federal government followed our example on child care. I would urge it to do the same thing today on this file—and 20 years down the road maybe it could follow Quebec's example again, but on secularism. I digress. Still, Quebec deserves special mention as the first North American state to ban oil and gas exploration in its territory.
As we mentioned multiple times, the government of Canada has failed in its duty to protect ecosystems. Not a week, not even a day, goes by without my colleagues questioning the Minister of Environment about that. The minister did indeed fail in his duty: He authorized dozens of new drilling projects in environmentally sensitive areas, including marine refuges. We spoke out about this before the summer break.
Everybody knows as well as I do that offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government supported the development of the offshore oil industry and authorized drilling projects in the very marine refuge it had created.
I want to talk about a double standard that I have seen emerging. There was a threat to the entire forestry sector in Quebec over the caribou issue. On numerous occasions, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that he was considering issuing a decree to ensure that caribou were better protected. At the same time, in those same weeks, he was prepared to approve offshore drilling.
That seems to me to be a double standard for two natural resource sectors. When it comes to the oil and gas sector, wildlife protection is not even on the government's radar. However, when it came to Quebec's forestry industry, the minister was ready to pounce, prepared to say he would issue a decree. In the end, the only thing that made him back down, strange as it may seem, was the forest fires. The double standards are pretty clear.
On this point, in the specific case of offshore development, the Minister of Environment absolved himself of responsibility by arguing on multiple occasions that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board was an independent body.
That is what was convenient for him, since it allowed him to justify his inaction, even though the board exists under an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the federal government is responsible for conducting environmental impact assessments and protecting natural environments.
For years now, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has been promoting the development and exploitation of marine oil and gas. Every year, the board issues a call for tenders and auctions off new exploratory drilling permits. Every year, our party speaks out against this process because its objective runs contrary to the objectives of protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change.
The boards and the Department of Natural Resources are responsible for both regulating the industry and fostering its development, which is totally incongruous. I am sure everyone would agree that these are two contradictory goals. As indicated on the department's website, their role is to facilitate the exploration and development of oil and gas resources. I hope that this problem will be corrected in this bill and that it will not prevent the development of renewable energy.
Now I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following. I have pointed out an inconsistency to my colleague the minister regarding the greenwashing in this bill. On reading this bill I wondered why they would add the expression “clean energy”. I asked the minister earlier which development this was referring to here. Of course there is going to be wind power projects, but the development at hand here is primarily oil and gas development. Why add the expression “clean energy”? The federal government uses that expression everywhere. Oil is not and never will be a clean energy. It is a purely Canadian fantasy.
My party—and I hope the same goes for the NDP and for all the other parties—is not fooled by the name changes in the two acts in question. To me, removing the word “petroleum” is greenwashing. They remove the word “petroleum” at the very moment that Ottawa and Newfoundland have a plan to double production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels a year, which would require 100 new drilling projects by 2030.
As we often say, the Liberals do not walk the talk. That much is obvious. If their goal is to have more clean energy projects, all I can say is that what the government is doing behind the scenes could not be further from that. By now, we are used to all this greenwashing language. The Prime Minister and his friend the Minister of Natural Resources have truly mastered that craft.
What I like about the Conservatives is that we know what to expect from them. They are proud, enthusiastic even, to act as lobbyists for the oil and gas sector.
In the Liberal ranks, however, under the guise of reducing the impact of the oil and gas sector's greenhouse gas emissions, they use other strategies: they want to produce net-zero oil using a bunch of new, extremely expensive technologies. Nevertheless, the goal remains the same: to support the oil and gas sector.
I will end on a positive note. This bill is not all bad. It contains elements to regulate the development of renewable energy, but those too will need to be looked at carefully in committee.
We also believe that environmental impact assessments should be the responsibility of independent public organizations whose mission does not include any other responsibilities or objectives. In that regard, we believe that the federal and provincial governments could be guided by Quebec's environmental legislation.
Finally, if the government wants the Bloc Québécois to support Bill C‑49, then it must show that this bill serves the energy transition.
On that point, I want to emphasize that it is futile for the government to argue that all the companies are doing is exploratory drilling because everyone knows that the purpose of such drilling is development. No company spends tens of millions of dollars to carry out exploratory drilling when they have no intention of developing the resources—
2816 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech today and for his work on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I would also like to thank him for all the work he is doing on renewable energy. I would even go so far as to say that he is a clean energy champion in his riding and in Quebec.
At the start of his speech, he talked about provincial jurisdictions. We have worked and negotiated hard with Premier Houston of Nova Scotia and also with Premier Furey of Newfoundland and Labrador, who support Bill C‑49.
We heard earlier that the Conservatives will not support the premiers. Further to the intervention by my Bloc Québécois colleague, I would like to know if his party will support Bill C‑49 because the premiers of both provinces support it.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start with a brief comment on breaking news. I know that many people are horrified and have been contacting me about the aggression we are seeing by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh. It appears it is launching an aggressive war of choice, calling it a “military operation” and taking a page out of Russia's playbook in the process. I hope Canada takes a firm stand for peace by opposing this aggression.
I want to follow up on a comment my colleague made about how allegedly we are trapped by oil. I, of course, reject that framing. I want to point out that his province, Quebec, receives transfer payments that are funded by energy production. I wonder if he wants to tell us how he feels about that and address whether Quebec should maybe reject transfer payments that owe their origin to the production of oil and gas.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love that question; it comes up a lot.
I would simply point out to my colleague that more than $30 billion, some of it from Quebec, has been poured into infrastructure that Quebeckers will never use. In 2022, if I am not mistaken, the oil and gas industry received $20 billion from the federal government for a sector of activity that will never serve Quebec. The balance of trade between Quebec and Alberta equals a loss of approximately $2 billion to $3 billion. Just send it back to us; that would make us very happy. Once we finish with the electrification of transportation, we would be quite happy to get that money back.
Equalization gets blamed for a lot of things. Once we are sovereign, we will be even better off.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today with my colleagues to speak on Bill C-49, which is a piece of legislation to amend the Atlantic accords, which are between the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. This is a crucial piece of legislation that matters in the global race toward net zero.
I want to say to my colleagues that we are in a perfect position as a country. Canada is in the driver's seat to make sure we can be part of that global solution, but this legislation is a requirement to do just that.
The agreement that was signed for the first time by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1985 and the one signed by the Government of Nova Scotia in 2005 demonstrate the importance of the work that has been done to promote regional fairness in Atlantic Canada. This guarantees fairness in the allocation of oil and gas resources within the federation for the benefit of our provinces.
The oil and gas industry still plays an important role in Newfoundland and Labrador today, and by amending the agreements, we are paving the way for a better way of governing, managing and, ultimately, profiting from offshore wind energy.
Offshore wind energy benefits Canada in many ways. This is a critical opportunity in our fight against climate change. The science is clear in this regard. Canada must work on reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Projects on the Atlantic coast can help to do that by harnessing the wind for the benefit of all.
That power can not only help Canada decarbonize its current electricity grid but ensure that we have excess power supply, not only for our own province of Nova Scotia but indeed for all of Canada in the days ahead. I will have more to say on that in a moment, but beyond the domestic focus, this is a tremendous opportunity, and an enormous opportunity for exports of green hydrogen transported as ammonia to fuel industrial uses around the world.
My hon. colleague from Halifax talks about the German chancellor who was in Newfoundland and Labrador last summer. Whether it is Europe, whether it is countries like Germany, but all around the world green hydrogen is the pathway for our industrial future. We have that opportunity right here in Canada, and this legislation would help to enable Canada's offshore sector to play a crucial role in doing just that.
I want to talk about some of the projects so that people can actually conceptualize what we are talking about. In our home province, there is EverWind, led by CEO Trent Vichie, and it has indigenous partners. As an Atlantic caucus, we had the opportunity to talk to Chief Terry Paul of Membertou, a partner on this project, which is driving tremendous benefit. First, of course, is onshore production of wind, which will play into a green hydrogen strategy. However, part 3 of that plan is to go offshore and leverage the tremendous opportunities we have in Nova Scotia to help fuel the world.
I want to talk about foreign direct investment. As I am part of the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association, I was sitting in on a meeting when Minister Rutley was there, and I was talking about the fact that other jurisdictions around the world have already moved in this direction. If we look at the United Kingdom and Europe, they have tremendous expertise, and their ability to invest alongside Canadian firms and Canadian expertise is significant. This represents a significant opportunity for foreign direct investment across the country and particularly in our Atlantic region, which is extremely important.
Last, I want to tell a story about jobs and opportunities. Not too long ago I came out of high school, in 2009, at Hants East Rural High. I am proud to say that I am an alumni there. However, at that time, graduates of my ilk were going to western Canada, which was where the opportunities were. I want to articulate that there are still great opportunities in western Canada, but I am proud to say that now there are more opportunities in our home provinces of Atlantic Canada where young people can make a future. I give credit for that, in part, to this government and the investment and focus it has had on Atlantic Canada.
Now, people graduating from high school in Nova Scotia can look west, they can look east and they can stay where they are at. There are opportunities at home to build a future. This legislation builds on that, and we need to be able to move quickly.
The other thing we need to understand is that this legislation is straightforward. I heard the Conservative critic, earlier in the debate, talking about the variety of questions that she has. When I look at this legislation, it is straightforward. It is amending the accords to create the former Nova Scotia offshore petroleum board to actually regulate, to be the regulator of these projects, to extend that.
Mr. Speaker, you know very well because you were involved in provincial government during that time. I want to credit you for your work at the provincial level.
This legislation is straightforward. A regulatory model would follow. We have the expertise involved in the board. However, time is of the essence. This is a global race. The longer this sits in the House of Commons, the more we are wasting time to be able to fight climate change but, more importantly, to create great jobs in this country.
What I am disappointed in is when I look across the way, some of the Conservatives members are already signalling that they are going to be against this. They are signalling that they are against Atlantic Canada, because this is a tremendous opportunity. They should ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and ask the Government of Nova Scotia. The member for Halifax very clearly said the progressive Conservative, and I highlight “progressive”, in Halifax wants this legislation. Where are the members? Where are the eight members of the Conservative Atlantic caucus? Will they stand up and make sure that their party votes as quickly as possible to advance this legislation?
This matters for Canada. It matters for Atlantic Canada. I want to see the member for Cumberland—Colchester, I want to see the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake, and I want to see the member for South Shore—St. Margarets stand up and be with the Liberal government because that is what Atlantic Canada needs. In fact, every member of this House needs to drive this forward.
For those who stand here in this House and talk about climate change as being the existential threat to our country and to our world, I agree with them. However, let them not stand here and say that they are against this straightforward piece of legislation that we need to be able to advance our green energy future. It is hypocrisy, if I hear this from the Bloc, and fortunately we have the NDP on board. Who would have thought, for all the criticisms that the opposition will sling at the NDP for being anti-development, that it is the Conservatives who stand here against the ability, the green energy future and the technology that we have in Atlantic Canada.
I look forward to taking questions from my Conservative colleagues, because they are going to have to explain to my constituents, to Nova Scotians, and to Newfoundland and Labradorians why it is they are against their prosperity, because they sure as heck stand in the House and pretend to stand for their interests at other times. However, on the piece of legislation that could create the economic prosperity that matters to our world and to our region, they heckle me from the side and say that somehow they will not support us.
I actually want this House to move this legislation quickly. Let us get it to committee. Let us put a motion up this afternoon to get it to committee to study. I will ask my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, who knows more about procedure. I think we should put this to the House and see if we could get unanimous consent to move this through the House so we could get to committee.
This matters. They want to talk about global energy. This is what it represents. Canada is in the driver seat, but only if we have the House on board to be able to move. Every day that this languishes in the House is yet another day that we are not moving forward on the global fight on climate change and we are not fighting for Atlantic Canadians.
That is what matters. Members can scream all they want from the other side. I am asking the Conservative Party of Canada to stand with the Liberal government for Atlantic Canada, very simply.
The last thing I want to say in my 45 seconds that I have is this. The Atlantic Loop is extremely important as part of this. We are going to create the conditions so that the offshore can succeed, but it is not just an export opportunity for hydrogen. It is an opportunity to provide Quebec and central Canada the power that they need. The Premier of Quebec has talked about the need for more generation. We have it on the offshore. Let us partner together and drive an opportunity to make a difference in this country. Let us make sure that we are focused on the ITCs. The government needs to clarify them, I will say that. We also need to drive forward.
The question remains today, and I will finish on this, will the Conservatives join us in supporting Atlantic Canada and our clean energy future, or will they not?
1661 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am a little taken aback. I would have thought that this past summer, with fires all over Quebec, Alberta and the rest of the world, would make my Liberal friends a little less smug about the fight against climate change, but no.
This morning, they are pounding their fists and exhorting everyone to vote in favour of the Liberals' climate change plan.
I just want to tell my colleague that, in 2022, the Liberal government gave the oil industry $51.5 billion. That industry turned a $220-billion profit in 2022. Considering that we need to build 3.5 million housing units in this country, that is utterly obscene.
How about a little humility, please.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this summer, I had the honour of being showcased in a Conservative ad campaign. I am happy to know that I was on TV across Canada. My agent will send them the bill. Given that I am a member of the Union des artistes, a bill will definitely be coming.
The problem is that what was stated in the ad was completely false. It said that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of the carbon tax. Obviously, we are for putting a price on pollution. I think that we all agree with that on this side of the House. That being said, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.
Has anyone told the Conservatives? The Premier of Quebec told them. The leader of the Bloc Québécois told them. Every member of the Bloc Québécois has been telling them. It does not apply. There has been a carbon market in Quebec for 10 years, and the tax does not apply.
The Conservatives have been spreading lies across the country. How does that make them feel?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it would be the Liberal fuel regulations. There is the carbon tax. There are the clean fuel standards. There are lots of different bills. It is the Liberal's fuel regulation that is basically hurting Quebeckers now. I heard it when I was in Quebec City. I had people telling me that they were against it.
The member may think it is interesting, but I think that the Bloc Party has been in cahoots with the Liberal Party enough that there is almost as though there are two coalitions in the House. If the Conservative Party has to take on every party in the House on behalf of Canadians, we will do it.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 2:26:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the midst of a housing crisis, $900 million earmarked for housing in Quebec is being held hostage in Ottawa's coffers. Why? The reason is that this Prime Minister says that he will not give Quebec the money unless he can impose conditions on it.
Simply put, the only thing the Prime Minister should be asking Quebec is into which account he should transfer the money. We are in a crisis and the Prime Minister is delaying $900 million in housing starts. I am appealing to his sense of responsibility.
Will he finally transfer the money?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 2:27:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that everyone has a responsibility in addressing the housing crisis. The federal government has an important role to play, as do the provincial and municipal governments.
We implemented a $4-billion plan to encourage municipalities to speed up the construction of housing in Canada. Right now, we are working with the Government of Quebec to figure out the best way to get this money to the municipalities so that housing can be built, just as we are doing across the country.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 2:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to being able to send this $900 million to municipalities in Quebec, but everyone knows full well that we have to work with the Quebec government to ensure that this money is appropriately allocated to the municipalities.
We are working in good faith. I can confirm that this $900 million is there for municipalities in Quebec, and we are very eager to send it to them.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 2:42:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my sympathy certainly goes out to the farmers with the weather we are facing in Quebec and right across this country. We have the CAP program and the business risk management programs, which we worked on with the provinces and the territories right across the country. My hon. colleague is well aware that the province applies tabulations sent in to the federal government and we make sure we compensate the farmer. We will continue to do that, working hard with farmers to make sure they are able to continue.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 2:58:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the longshore workers at the Port of Québec were first locked out. Some of those workers have lost their homes. Couples have divorced. People are drowning in debt. This is more than a labour dispute. It is a real tragedy for dozens, almost a hundred families. What is more, the longshore workers in Quebec City are at a disadvantage in this fight. It is like David and Goliath, but this time David does not have his slingshot.
This government, which claims to be progressive, is 40 years behind Quebec. When will it finally understand—
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 3:02:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said that she would not pour fuel on the fire of inflation. She added $44 billion in new spending in the 2023 budget, throwing a return to balanced budgets out the window.
Now we have the Bloc Québécois trying to convince people that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. They should have a word with our farmers, who receive bills on which the words “carbon tax” are right there in black and white. I could table one if they agree.
On this side, everyone understands that axing the carbon tax is the right thing to do for our farmers.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 3:02:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am neither a Quebecker nor a francophone. I am also obviously not a member of the Bloc Québécois. However, there is one thing I know about Quebec: The Quebec nation is the environment leader in Canada. Quebec is the leader when it comes to climate action.
Our government recognizes that. We admire Quebec's environmental leadership. We understand that Quebeckers—
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 3:13:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
The carbon tax came up during question period. I think I demonstrated that the carbon tax applies in Quebec. I have supporting evidence. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this bill received by a young—
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague with whom I have the great pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He chairs that committee and we have spent a lot of time together trying to save our fisheries. I would like to ask him two questions.
We worked hard on the right whales file. We have seen all the effort that is being made by our fishers to keep right whales as safe as possible and ensure their survival. We know that takes a lot of energy and causes a lot of stress for our fishers.
What should we make of the marine gas exploration initiative in an area known to be frequented by right whales versus the efforts fishers are making to save this species?
Meanwhile, Quebec is a role model in terms of wind energy. We know that social licence is needed to implement this type of mechanism, which is a great alternative to gas exploration.
Are you sure you are going to get enough social licence from your people?
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, all I will say about the Atlantic Loop is that I think all parties are onside with creating the Atlantic Loop.
It is very important to get New Brunswick and Nova Scotia off coal, for example. I think that would allow it to happen. It would take a lot of money and a lot of effort to do. The power that comes from, and I will use Churchill Falls as an example, and goes into Quebec may not be enough power to actually satisfy the demands. We may have to look at developing Gull Island or some other project in Labrador. The water is there, the flow of water is there. It is the cleanest energy that we could produce. I think we should be driving it more each and every day to help produce clean energy projects.
I would be remiss if I did not say I am not against all projects offshore. I have two family members who worked in that industry for many years, and one of them still does.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to begin, I want to take a moment to extend my condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of my friend Mathieu Leblanc, who passed away recently. Mathieu was a colleague of mine from FAECUM and the University of Montreal and Quebec student movements. He was a supporter of the labour movement. It was very touching to see all of the things his family and friends had to say about him on social media over the past few days. Beer always tasted better when I drank it with him. I offer my condolences to his family. We will all miss him.
I am rising today to speak to a subject that is of vital importance to my region of Abitibi-Témiscamingue and all of the regions of Quebec. Cell coverage is becoming a critical issue for all communities. The smart phone that we all carry in our pockets is a tool that enables us to be in contact with our family, friends, jobs, businesses and institutions. Landlines do the same thing for those who still have them at home, but they are a tool that is being used less and less frequently.
In my region, like many others in Quebec, insufficient cell coverage can cause all sorts of problems.
To start with, I should mention our diminished capacity to attract residents, especially in rural communities. This hits close to home for me. My office manager, Christian, lives in Destor, a rural neighbourhood of Rouyn‑Noranda. It can be hard if not impossible to reach him at home on a cell phone. The only option is to contact him through an Internet application, even though he lives just 45 minutes from downtown Rouyn‑Noranda. Many other Abitibi-Témiscamingue residents face the same situation: they can only be reached using technologies other than cell phones. With the advent of telework, being unable to get a clear cell phone signal means that residents living in rural neighbourhoods far from large towns or cities become second-class citizens, unable to reap the benefits of this new work arrangement.
There is also, and perhaps most importantly, the issue of safety. Accidents happen. For example, on the road to Duparquet, at “9 Milles”, as it is known in the area, cell coverage is spotty. Inevitably, that increases the risk in the event of an accident. Crucial life-saving minutes are lost simply because there is insufficient cell coverage on our main roads. This is just one example of the many cell coverage dead zones on our main roads. They can stretch for 15 to 20 kilometres and, in some places, even further. La Vérendrye park, which I visit every week, presents this same challenge.
Regarding the conditions for issuing spectrum licenses, Bill S‑242 says that the promoter must undertake to “deploy the spectrum to provide service to at least 50% of the population.” That is not enough. If a promoter is only required to connect a minimum of 50% of the population, as the bill states, they will favour the most profitable areas of the spectrum. This will leave a large number of citizens without cell coverage, creating second-class citizens, as was the case with Internet coverage until recently. Let us just say that, in the context of the cellular network, those who make the company money were already connected.
The bill has to be able to offer the service to those who do not yet have it. What we are seeing is that it is the same companies and the same geographic realities as for the Internet. Before talking about competition, we need to talk about connecting more people in rural areas, in other words accessibility. It is a matter of equality of opportunity for rural and remote communities that are currently not well served.
People who opt for a rural lifestyle are being penalized right now. We are undermining land use, a core value. Our villages, our rural and remote communities deserve better. We must use legislative and financial incentives to encourage the full use of the spectrum allocated for rural and remote regions. Getting connectivity to keep pace with supply and demand, and the realities of competition, is rather slow and has reached a limit in the rural and remote regions. It is simple: companies do not serve places where it is not profitable.
We also need to limit the reassignment of a spectrum licence, because transferring licences from company to company only adds to the connectivity delays. This also creates uncertainty and this uncertainty can have a rather dramatic impact on price increases.
The government needs to fund the deployment of infrastructure to connect residents in unserved areas. Telecommunications companies must be required by law to serve as many residents as possible and share infrastructure more effectively to avoid building too much infrastructure.
Forcing telecommunications companies to serve as many residents as possible and share infrastructure more effectively means that the majority of people will be connected, but there will always be residents in areas where there is no access, and the government will have to act for the benefit of these people.
That is why adequate funding is needed to connect these Quebeckers and Canadians as quickly as possible. We need only look at the Quebec government's operation high speed. Since the money was sent to Quebec City, the plan was put in place quickly. Since 2021, the trucks of the employees installing the network have been everywhere, and the network is being rolled out at lightning speed. This is particularly true in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, where Videotron works.
By sending the money now to Quebec City, which is already prepared to act on this issue, cell coverage can be improved more quickly. I especially commend Quebec City for its leadership. This crucial and critical infrastructure will be built quickly in sparsely populated areas if we can count on the government.
The fact is that any debate on Internet and cellphone coverage always comes down to this: Do we want to occupy more of our land or do we want to concentrate people in and around big cities and major arteries? That is implicit in this debate. Choosing to live in the regions, choosing to live in rural areas, means using our lands and bringing them to life. Competition exists in our big cities, and to a certain extent in our towns, but the issue is not whether there is competition; the issue is access to services. To develop competition, we must have at least one player already on the ground. It is a matter of equal opportunity for rural communities, which are often underserved.
The issue of duration is relevant in itself and is raised in Bill S-242. Should we impose a deadline or not, and what deadline would be acceptable? Take, for example, the deployment of high-speed Internet in Quebec, launched in 2021. Even today, two years later, most of the connections are fast because the operation was subsidized. It is important to understand that this deployment will not happen overnight. This timeframe calls for consultation with the community to ensure that this time requirement can be met. It is one thing to demand this of a major player in the industry. It is quite another to demand it of a new or smaller player in the field.
The issues of Internet access, cell service in rural areas and cell network convergence deserve to be studied in greater depth. Can the government create a program to build cell towers in regions where there is no service?
That is why I decided to move a motion a few minutes ago at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. My motion addresses these issues and will enable us to study them with various industry players. It will also allow for in-depth consideration of the accessibility and affordability of wired and wireless products. The committee could seek input from the CRTC, the Competition Bureau, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry or the Minister of Rural Economic Development, all of which could be of interest here. That will give us the data and recommendations we need to ensure that we respond appropriately to consumers' concerns and needs.
People are using wired services less and less, and wireless communications are taking over, so we have to study this issue in depth. I truly believe that a committee study is the best way to develop a regulatory framework that will meet the needs of Quebeckers from Gaspé to Rouyn-Noranda.
The Bloc Québécois will vote against this legislation. We ask that the House engage in a much deeper process of reflection, similar to the one followed for high speed Internet. This issue has been a key commitment for me, and the reason I entered politics in 2019. If I may use a redundant expression, it was the priority priority of my election campaign.
Back then, in the kind of rural area where I live, it became clear that existing services could not provide Internet access. The programs in place planned to take five years to install 50 kilometres of fibre optic cable, during which time no one would be able to connect to the Internet. It was a major problem. Seven, eight, even ten types of programs were being operated by different service providers to provide Internet access in certain regions, but none of them were compatible. We complained loudly to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.
COVID‑19 also sped up the process, as people found themselves teleworking or studying from home. I think that the federal government has realized its program's shortcomings because we pressed the matter. At the same time, following the example of Abitibi-Ouest, the Quebec government created operation high speed. They mapped the area, figured out the needs and awarded the grants. I commend their leadership, and I hope the same will happen with the cellular network very soon.
1685 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
