44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 1, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/1/24 11:39:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I felt a little uncomfortable giving a speech today. The House leader of the Bloc Québécois called me yesterday to tell me that the Conservatives would be moving a super original motion today on the carbon tax. I read the motion and told the House leader that the speech should be given by the member for Montarville, because he is the foreign affairs critic.
As we know, this whole issue does not really apply to Quebec. One day we will be our own country, and we will discuss this at the UN. For the time being, we have to debate it in other people's parliaments, but this does not apply to Quebec. I see it as a diplomatic issue, and anyone who knows me well knows that I am probably not the best person to engage in diplomacy; yet here I am, rising in the House today.
We are here to debate a motion that is, as usual, ridiculous. To be frank, the motion is utterly ridiculous. It is patently false. We do not know whether this motion stems from bad faith, incompetence or a combination of the two, as is often the case. The reason the Conservatives write these motions is to create an echo. It is so they can once again say that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the carbon tax. They are trying to create an echo, but the echo that comes from these Conservative motions is like any other echo. It is hollow. When someone stands on the edge of the Grand Canyon and shouts “hello”, it comes back as “hello, -o, -o, -o”. When we look at the Conservatives' motions, they talk about a first, second, third, fifth carbon tax. It is an echo, and it is hollow.
The Conservatives started with the first one. The first one was the real carbon tax. They fell on it like rabid animals. They did not know that it did not apply to Quebec. I guess they did not have the expertise. Mistakes happen. They began to backpedal. In politics, it can be hard to admit to being wrong. In time, they came to the conclusion that it was true that it did not apply to Quebec, so there would have to be a second carbon tax.
That was when they invented the second carbon tax, referring to the clean fuel regulations. Then they realized that Quebec already had its own regulations, that its regulations were already in effect, and that the federal regulations were for 2030. Nevertheless, they began saying that the price of gas would jump by 13¢ or 14¢ a litre. The price of gas did go up. Then they said that people would no longer be able to afford turkeys, so Thanksgiving would be ruined. The price of gas has dropped 20¢ since then. It even dropped on Thanksgiving. The Conservative leader and the members from Quebec were not there to say so, so the price went down. They looked silly, but they are resilient. We like them, really. They are resilient. Conservatives are tough.
They figured there must be a third carbon tax coming down the pike. To hear the Conservatives talk, when I buy a piece of furniture at Ikea, it must have been made in Alberta. Everything comes from Alberta. It is transportation, it is this, it is that, only now we have the figures for inflation. Now they are interested. They talk about it all the time. Inflation is one point higher in Quebec than in Alberta, but the federal carbon tax hurts Albertans more than anyone else.
Then they decided that they needed to come up with a fourth one. The fourth one was a good one. It did not last long, because we took care of it. We are onto them now. We have become experts at nipping this in the bud. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is the Conservative envoy to Quebec, a future minister if ever there were one. He is the opposition leader's Louis XIV in Quebec. He is the king. He told the House that it is true that Quebec has its own emissions permit system, but it is the federal government's fault that the cost of the permits has gone up in Quebec. We want to table a document to prove that this is not true, but he is opposing that. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles, the Quebec lieutenant, thinks there is a correlation. To him, there are more drownings in the summer because of ice-cream sales; the two go hand in hand. That is how it works, in his mind. We explained to him that emissions permits in Quebec are issued under a government order that predates the federal carbon tax. It is a government order. It was done with California, which is 10 times bigger than we are. It is consistent with our goal of reducing our emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels. The biggest factor driving the price of permits is demand from California.
It is not that I do not like Canada, but Californians could not care less about the federal government. It is the least of their problems. They buy permits, and that has an effect on the price. That is where things stand now. The next step, the sixth carbon tax, will be a world economic forum for Freemasons.
That is where things stand now. We are on the fifth or sixth carbon tax. I have lost track. I am not sure what number carbon tax we are up to. Now the carbon tax is no longer an environmental plan, but a tax plan. Incidentally, the translation is bad because the French version of the motion uses “mesure fiscale”, or tax measure, but the English one uses “tax plan”. “Tax measure” sounds milder in Quebec, whereas a “tax plan” sounds like something worth ranting about.
The Conservatives are saying that the carbon tax is a tax plan. That is what the motion says. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten about the “environmental” part of environmental taxation. That is understandable because they do not see any connection between the economy and the environment, innovation, the development of new technologies and collective prosperity. The Conservatives only understand the connection between two things: extraction and extraction. They can understand that one equals one. That is easy.
However, the Conservatives think taxation has no place in an environmental plan, except when they find themselves in a situation where they need tax credits for their buddies in Alberta. That, Quebeckers pay for. When the time comes for a carbon capture tax credit, when businesses need a tax credit from us, suddenly taxation is important. However, that is not a tax plan, no matter how much they rant and rave that it is.
When the conversation turns to a clean technology tax credit, when the Conservatives tell us that they would like Quebeckers' taxes to be used to fund small nuclear reactors so that we can stop using gas to process oil sands and instead take that gas, pump it through new pipelines to the port in British Columbia that is nearing completion, and then sell that gas, all with the support of taxation, they do not see that as a tax plan at all.
When it comes to tax credits for dirty hydrogen, which plan is it? All of a sudden, they see a connection between the environment and taxation.
However, when it comes to acknowledging the science that clearly links emissions reductions with carbon pricing in other provinces, when it comes to the system we have in Quebec, which uses very robust empirical evaluations, when it comes to the regime in British Columbia, when we know that trading emissions permits with Europe and the United States works, when it is time to acknowledge the science, the Conservatives absolutely never agree.
They say it is a tax plan. These are Conservatives who supposedly have faith in the market. The people on the right say the market works. The market sets a price, and people react to that price, until the environment is involved, that is. Then, suddenly, economics 101 goes by the board.
What do the Conservatives support time after time, especially the ones from Quebec whom we never see talking about this? Maybe it is because they are too embarrassed. Maybe it is because they are working on the eighth, ninth or tenth carbon tax, working ahead so they can give us all of them at once. What they support is a plan to help oil companies by taxing Quebeckers. As I have said, they are compulsive taxers.
We are talking $83 billion in subsidies for Alberta oil companies, paid for by Quebeckers through their taxes. Meanwhile, we have people waiting in hospital hallways and we are asking for way less than that in health transfers, but where are the Quebec Conservatives? They are nowhere to be seen. They are hiding. We do not see them.
Immigration and taking care of irregular migrants has cost Quebec $470 million, and the feds are supposed to cover that, yet they say they are going to give Quebec a mere $100 million and will not be paying Quebec's debt. None of the Quebec Conservatives are standing up because no expense is too great for oil companies, but any expense is too great when it comes to taking care of Quebeckers.
The Quebec Conservatives all think that they are going to become ministers. I do not know what they will be ministers of, and I would not want to be the one who has to make those decisions, but I will say that Quebeckers will have to pay dearly for those members' cabinet seats. The Conservatives have already started to abandon Quebeckers. They are good at that. I want to remind the House of a deadline that is coming up, when we will have to explain our platforms to Quebeckers and justify our actions to them. The Bloc Québécois will be able to say that we have been completely trustworthy.
Quebeckers are going to listen to what I just said about the Conservatives because they are a lot smarter than the members on this side of the House think.
1756 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:50:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader is obsessed with the carbon tax. I would not dare to speculate on how many times a day he thinks about it. He even blames the carbon tax for inflation.
Now, it is true that studies have been done. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada have concluded that the carbon tax had very little effect.
There are other factors in Quebec that are driving up prices, such as the housing crisis. During question period yesterday, the Liberals were bragging about having paid Quebec so much money, saying that they had matched Quebec's investment. We had to fight for the money that Ottawa owed Quebec. No housing has been built for years. Negotiations dragged on. When it comes to housing, the Liberals refuse to give Quebec City any money. They would rather squabble and see the Liberal logo in front of construction sites. It has an impact.
I realize that the parliamentary secretary wants us to turn on the Conservatives and criticize them. Sooner or later, the Liberals will have to admit that they, too, have made mistakes and that they, too, often underestimate Quebeckers' intelligence by saying that they are building housing.
As far as immigration targets are concerned, Quebec wants to be consulted. The Minister of Immigration is literally telling us that Ottawa is not an ATM, as though Quebeckers are no more than freeloaders who are not paying their fair share into the federal treasury. The parliamentary secretary can criticize the Conservatives if he wants to, but I think that the Liberal government has lot to account for too. I think he should reflect carefully on that.
278 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:53:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to seem like I am sidestepping the question, but that is none of our concern. The federal carbon tax is none of our concern. The taxation of carbon in the other provinces is none of our concern. It does not apply in Quebec.
Quebec decided to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030. It came up with the means and found partners to achieve its goal. Some Canadian provinces were initially involved, but they left this system. They did not want to participate, and now they are stuck with the federal government meddling in their own affairs.
In Quebec, we are proud of this system because we do not have to deal with these issues. We have a system that reflects who we are, that is based on the quantity of emissions instead of on the price. It is consistent with the way we produce our electricity and how we heat our buildings. I will let the nine other provinces deal with their own problems.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 3:52:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Her speeches are always very interesting.
My colleague said that, to her, a carbon tax is not a price on pollution. When I go to the grocery store, I buy oranges. I use a resource, the oranges, and I pay the price. When I buy paper, I use a resource, the paper. In exchange, I give an amount of money. That is the price. In the other provinces, except Quebec, when I use a resource such as CO2, I pay—
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 3:53:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was simply saying that when we go to the store to buy oranges or paper, or when we use resources, we pay a price. It is a specific amount. When we create pollution and there is a tax per volume of pollution emitted, that is a price and it takes the form of a tax. My colleague seems to think that it is not a price on pollution. I am just going to ask her very simply to clarify something.
Can she give me the definition of what she believes a price is?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 4:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Barrie—Innisfil got up and said it was one of the worst 20 minutes of his life, yet on every Conservative opposition day, debates drag on for so long that they feel like several lifetimes.
That said, we are in a parliamentary setting. Words matter. Tone matters. We have to be careful about our comparisons. The parliamentary secretary said that the leader of the official opposition was behaving like Donald Trump. That is wrong. I think that Mr. Trump could learn a lot from the Conservative leader's methods.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us what Mr. Trump could learn from the Conservative leader's methods.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 5:10:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives' idea of cleaning the air is taking CBC/Radio Canada off the airwaves.
They are so determined to try to prove that the federal carbon tax applies in Quebec that their colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, showed up in the House with a bill and gave false information to parliamentarians. She had with her bill that had to do with the emissions trading system in Quebec. It seems to me as though this member, who was part of the Charest government that implemented that system, should have known she was misleading parliamentarians.
The Conservatives are really desperate to convince Quebeckers that they are subject to a tax that does not apply to them. It showed in my colleague's speech. Does he think that it is a good idea to present false information to Parliament to try to lie to Quebeckers?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank my colleague for Bill C‑365, which is very interesting. I look forward to talking about it in my speech.
Many of these fintech companies are provincially regulated tech start-ups. In fact, the largest financial institution in Quebec, Desjardins, is a co‑operative operating under the provincial jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and is not subject to federal legislation.
I would like to know whether my colleague has considered the need to align with Quebec's wish to consult and legislate in this area, and whether he is open to the idea of amending Bill C‑365 to prevent a situation where some banks are regulated under an open banking system and Desjardins, in Quebec, remains unregulated or not yet regulated. I wonder whether my colleague has thought about that aspect.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Bay of Quinte for introducing the bill. It is a very interesting bill.
As surprising as it may be, this is the first time we have the opportunity to debate open finance in the House. Even the Standing Committee on Finance has never addressed this issue. So far, the discussion has been largely left to the experts and industry representatives. The Department of Finance, the Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, all those fine people, are currently examining the issue. As I said earlier, the same goes for the Autorité des marchés financiers, or the AMF, and Quebec's department of finance. In fact, back home in Quebec, we have Desjardins and other co-operatives.
It is also important to remember that the technology companies that would interface with customers in an open financial system are not banks. Essentially, they do not fall under federal jurisdiction, just as not all financial institutions fall under federal jurisdiction.
I have been closely following the work of the Advisory Committee on Open Banking, which is referenced extensively in the preamble of the bill. This work is very enlightening. The committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including banks, credit unions, insurance companies, trusts, brokers, technology companies, and the list goes on. My colleague talked about that. However, no consumer advocacy groups, privacy advocates or provincial regulators, such as Quebec's AMF, were consulted. It was therefore time to broaden the conversation. For that reason alone, the bill makes a huge contribution to the debate, and I thank my colleague once again for introducing it.
Implementing an open financial system constitutes a huge change with many implications. In the long term, we can envisage a system in which financial institutions would essentially be able to manufacture financial products. Customer relations would be handled by technology companies that would not offer the financial products themselves but would act as intermediaries and data aggregators. That is quite a change. The bill's preamble lists the benefits of such an open financial system. I will not repeat them here, as I think they have been clearly outlined. I would even say that it is inevitable that we will move toward an open system. It is going to happen.
Since this is the first time we are discussing this subject, I will use my time today to broaden the debate a bit, because there are also challenges and risks. It is our job as legislators to talk about all that, since we are working toward the common good.
Our financial system's greatest asset is its stability and the confidence that comes with that stability. It is stable because it is subject to very strict legal obligations. Ultimately, if something goes wrong, for example if there is fraud, data theft, failure to report a suspicious transaction that would enable the tracking of money laundering, and so on, then the financial institution is the one that is legally and financially responsible. These financial institutions are subject to strict prudential obligations so as to ensure they have the means of dealing with the risks in question.
Since the financial institutions are ultimately responsible, they currently guard their members' and customers' personal, financial or banking information very jealously. Again, the financial system's greatest asset is its stability. However, this is also where it becomes a weakness, because it can lead to compartmentalization and a lack of flexibility. The world has changed with all the new financial products online. The development of information technologies has given rise to the data economy, which requires the data to circulate more freely in order to grow. It is unclear whether our financial architecture is currently adapted to this new environment. That is the purpose of the bill.
A financial institution cannot be asked to be responsible for the use of data it no longer has custody of. Regulations and prudential standards will have to be adapted. It is far from certain that a technology company, on the other hand, has the wherewithal to take on the financial risks I mentioned earlier. For example, a financial start-up can be born and die in no time at all. That has been the case with several cryptocurrency companies. Caution is needed. That does not mean we should stand idle and fail to move towards a more open banking system.
People want the flexibility this kind of system offers. People want aggregators that put all their information in one place, facilitate transactions and give individuals an accurate picture of their financial situation. When money is tight at the end of the month, these applications and services are valuable, and there is demand for them.
People do not understand why they are not being allowed to do this with the technology available today. After all, our personal information belongs to us.
That is why fintech companies have already started coming on line despite the legal limbo. They are responding to an obvious demand. At this point, because they are not officially part of a financial system that makes sense, they exist in a grey area and find alternative ways to evolve.
Users currently provide their personal information themselves. When the app gets into an account, it extracts data from the screen and stores personal and confidential information. Financial institutions' secure networks get regular visits from actors outside the financial sector, and that makes them vulnerable. The more advanced these strategies get, the greater the risk to our banking system.
I was saying that the status quo is not sustainable. It would be pointless for legislators to bury their heads in the sand as though it were 1990.
In some cases, it must be said, the risks are minimal. An aggregator that scans public data to show us mortgage rates in one click is convenient and low risk. However, an aggregator that collects our personal data to give us a detailed picture of our financial situation is also convenient but riskier. Financial information is very sensitive, so it is vital to protect it. Furthermore, if the app can be used to perform transactions, which implies that it places orders, that opens up a whole new level of risk, the risk of fraud.
What about the principle of needing to know the customer? That principle is the foundation of our anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. How can a financial institution apply this principle when it is communicating via an app?
Lastly, an important part of risk is the financial capacity to take on risk. Without that, the consumer could lose everything. Fintechs currently operate in a grey area, which is a problem. A clear framework is needed, with clear obligations and responsibilities, as well as oversight mechanisms and institutions to enforce compliance.
The advisory committee recognized all of these difficulties, but it felt that it was important to move quickly so that Canada would not be lagging behind and so as not to hamper the sector's development, a bit like what my Conservative colleague mentioned earlier. He also said that the companies continue to operate in a grey area, which is what is happening right now and is not serving anyone well. That is why the advisory committee recommended giving clear direction.
However, the committee also recommended minimal regulations so that things can move faster. Then, industry stakeholders can determine for themselves how to operationalize and resolve technical issues. In short, the committee is recommending a sort of self-regulation.
It recognized that the financial strength of technology companies is an issue, but it did not propose any institutional mechanism for dealing with it. There will not be any equivalent for deposit insurance, at least not in the beginning, when the new legislation comes into force, as the committee suggests. At best, the committee mentions that people should get their own insurance.
The committee also recognized the constitutional issue, but it proposed circumventing it. It proposes integrating the federal financial institutions. As for the others, for example, the large credit unions, they can join if they want to, but as second-class institutions, which is something we do not want to happen. As Quebeckers, whose main financial institution is a co-operative and not a bank, we understand that a two-tier financial system leaves much to be desired. Barring a constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot regulate these other institutions. Also, in order for the financial system to truly be open, the governments will have to coordinate.
I like Bill C‑365. It requires the government to introduce legislation in a timely manner. However, I am not so sure about the second clause. Setting a deadline for introducing legislation without ensuring that we are ready and that any potential problems have been resolved seems a bit hasty and rash to me.
In implementing such an open system, I would like us to follow the example of Emperor Augustus who said to make haste slowly. Let us get to work right away, because the status quo is no longer tenable, but let us take the time to get it right, because the risks are high. Specifically, let us do it right by properly consulting the Quebec government when it comes to regulating co-operatives.
1562 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
