44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 9, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/9/24 10:35:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we will be spending another day in the Conservative Party's mythical carbon tax bubble. What a shame.
However, I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition about the Liberal Party's abysmal record when it comes to housing. Its record is absolutely atrocious. I toured Quebec this past year. No one I talked to ever mentioned eliminating the carbon tax as a potential solution to the housing crisis. What people did tell us is that the cities are not the problem. The cities are not the ones causing delays. The federal government is the one holding up the work by launching program after program.
One possible solution that the Bloc Québécois will shortly be proposing is to have the federal government pay a single transfer for housing like it does for health care. That would reduce both delays and costs. Is the leader of the Conservative Party in favour of such a measure?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 10:50:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of considerable climate change and have led to significant increases in the price of vegetables, grains and fruit in recent years. The whole point of the carbon tax is to lower greenhouse gas emissions. That is one thing.
For another thing, Quebec decided to join the Western Climate Initiative, which is a kind of carbon exchange. California and British Columbia both participate. As a result, Quebec is unaffected by the carbon tax.
Would our Conservative colleagues be willing to join Quebec and British Columbia in the carbon exchange? It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep inflation in check, without monopolizing our time every day simply trying to reduce or eliminate a carbon tax that plays such a useful role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 10:51:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we are aiming for co-operation and dialogue in this motion. We want to include the premiers of all provinces, including Quebec. Therefore, let us just get to the table, have the discussion, show leadership at both the provincial and national levels, and show how this Confederation can actually work at a time of crisis for Canadians right across the country.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:09:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an issue that I am sure most Canadians will find the Conservative Party is in want of, which is an actual idea to deal with the price on pollution or the environment. The Conservatives, in fact, are like a fish out of water at times, flopping all over the place. It is hard to actually pin them down. I do not say that lightly.
I would like to convey this for my Conservative friends across the way. Let us look back to 2015, when countries around the world went to Paris. One consensus from the Paris conference was that the climate mattered, that there were initiatives that governments around the world should take to deal with the climate crisis.
Canada was one of those countries to make that decision to bring in a carbon tax, carbon rebate process to support what had come out of the Paris conference. It was meant to be used as a national backstop.
For example, the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Quebec do not have the carbon tax, carbon rebate policy. We have seen some provinces back away from the program they had in favour of the national price on pollution or the carbon rebate and carbon tax. They did that, at least in good part, because they recognized the value of the national program. However, nothing prevents a province from going on its own and developing what the world is demanding, recognizing that we should be concerned about our environment. The price on pollution is a way to deal with that.
The Conservatives have agreed with that. Let us look at Stephen Harper's policy platform in 2008. Nineteen members of Parliament in the Conservative caucus today supported that. The iconic leader who they have pictures of supported a price on pollution.
Let us fast forward. The last leader the Conservatives, the one the current leader replaced, Erin O'Toole, had a price on pollution as a part of his election platform, and 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election went around the country with that election platform, making it very clear there should be a price on pollution.
There was nothing unique about that. Every political party inside this chamber, the Greens, the NDP, the Bloc, the Liberals and, at the time, the Conservatives, campaigned on a price on pollution.
The Conservative Party, with its new shiny leader, talks about axing the tax. The reality is that Conservatives are axing the facts. That is what they are really doing. That is why I challenge the Conservatives, and it is not the first time.
Is there a Conservative member of Parliament who is brave enough or has the courage to have that debate? I would love to have a debate with any Conservative member of Parliament, whether it is at a public school in Ottawa or in Winnipeg. I look forward to one Conservative member of Parliament standing up today and saying that he or she will have that debate. Those members are going to have a tough time getting their leader to agree to have that public debate. They do not want the facts. They do not want people to understand what the Conservative agenda really is on the issue, and that should be of great concern.
When the leader of the Conservative Party says that they want to axe the tax, it is so misleading. The Conservative members of Parliament know that.
The net disposable income of 80% of the residents in Winnipeg North will go down as a direct result of this bumper-sticker policy that the Conservatives are trying to sell Canadians through deception and misinformation, and they do that consistently. We have to wonder where they get this stuff.
An interesting article came out, and I would like to bring the attention of members to it because it is really important for us to recognize, saying that the past week they got an extremely revealing look behind the curtains of the leader of the Conservative Party's baloney factory; that first of all, he was accepting major donations from oil sands executives, which is interesting to hear, who they knew were fighting hard against the rules and regulations to clean up their operations; but second, he was outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting.
Let us understand who Mash consulting is. Often I talk about the leader of the Conservative Party and his links to MAGA conservativism, the far right. Brian Mulroney said how they had amputated the progressive side of the Conservative Party. Kim Campbell is even harsher in her comments compared to Joe Clark, who says that the Conservative Party has left the progressive nature of its political heritage.
Let me read right from it. It states that he is outsourcing his communications strategy to Mash consulting. That is where the Conservatives are going. It is a firm that has close ties to the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan, but also to companies like Shell and I understand, Canada Proud.
Canadians should be concerned about what they see from today's Conservative Party, which has abandoned any sort of progressive heritage. It is not just me saying this; former Progressive Conservative prime ministers are saying what I am conveying here today.
The Conservative Party reality is far, far right. It is on the extreme. The Conservatives are more concerned about catering to the People's Party's vote than they are to good, sound public policy. Without any hesitation whatsoever, that is why I have no problem in challenging members of the Conservative Party to go to a public school in Ottawa or Winnipeg. I would love the opportunity to see a person from the media and a classroom full of students, and see how the Conservatives justify their irresponsible policy stand on the issue of a price on pollution. If they were to take me up on it, and I suspect they will not, it would be somewhat of an eye opener.
When the Conservatives say that the polls tell them they are right, they have been very successful in deceiving Canadians when it comes to the whole “axe the tax” campaign. They drop completely the rebate portion that increases the disposable incomes of 80% or more of Canadians and at the same time provides an incentive to decrease the use of fossil fuels. However, the Conservatives have no problem doing that. We saw that today when the leader of the Conservative Party stood and gave all sorts of false information.
I follow immigration very closely. I was the immigration critic and I can say that the Harper years were not good years for immigration, yet he thinks that those were the best years in Canadian history. He was talking about the jobs. In comparison with Stephen Harper's record, we have well over two million new jobs created in eight years compared to just a million jobs in 10 years. It is misinformation. The Conservatives are misleading constantly in social media and in statements in the House.
That is the Conservative Party today, that is the sort of behaviour. I would suggest that the Conservatives are not going to fool Canadians. When the time is here, Canadians will know, and the Conservatives will never be put into a government situation.
1235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:24:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of equity, diversity and inclusion, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.
The Conservatives have evolved. I am pleased to see that when I read their motion. It takes them time, because they do not evolve at the same rate as everyone else. There has, however, been some progress, because nowhere in the motion does it say that there is a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh carbon tax. I asked the member for Lévis—Lotbinière how many carbon taxes there were now.
There is nothing in there that says that the carbon tax applies explicitly to Quebec. What they are asking, after a preamble I will address because it is full of insinuations, not necessarily explicit inaccuracies, but insinuations, is that the federal, provincial and territorial governments sit down together. This is progress, because, for the first time, the Conservatives’ discourse includes an attempt at dialogue, and the level of demagoguery has been toned down a notch, although it is still there.
Obviously, the preamble is problematic because they talk about the increase in the carbon tax, suggesting that it might apply to Quebec. It does not apply to Quebec. In the preamble, they talk about the carbon tax crisis and tell us that Canada now ranks 62nd out of 67 countries in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. “Canada” ranks 62nd out of 67 countries; Quebec is doing better.
It is another way of telling Quebeckers and Canadians that this is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. It is another way of denying the fact that there is a connection between taxation and the environment. What the Conservatives forgot to say was that we ranked 62nd out of 67 countries, but that the 61 countries ahead of us have a higher carbon tax. I would have liked to see that in the motion’s preamble, because there are a lot of carbon pricing systems. That is pertinent to the other provinces and the territories. It has nothing to do with Quebec. I am just saying that the preamble is mediocre.
Then we get to the body of the motion, where they say that we need to get to the bottom of things, where they say there needs to be a dialogue. Quebec, the nine other provinces, the territories and the Prime Minister should meet, the meeting should be transparent, public and fact-based, and everyone should be there.
If they admit that there could be an amendment to correct the inaccuracies and remove the insinuations from the preamble, and say that there should be a meeting, we cannot really oppose the motion if things are done properly. We did it for immigration targets. We asked that the federal government meet with Quebec and the other provinces. However, there were no lies in our preamble. We asked for a meeting on targets, policies and health transfers, but the facts in the preamble to the motion were true.
The Conservatives seem to have moved on now, especially those from Quebec. They sounded like fools with all their questions about whether the carbon tax did or did not apply to Quebec. It took a while, but they learned. Education works. We are proud of ourselves and of our message.
The meeting would make it possible to counteract the last lie that the Conservatives are spreading across English Canada. Now that they know that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, they are spreading the lie that Quebec is taking advantage of other Canadians. The carbon tax would rise to $80 per metric tonne of carbon, while we in Quebec would only be paying $47. As a result, in addition to being a bunch of lazy freeloaders receiving equalization payments, Quebeckers would enjoy a free ride in the Canadian federation.
The meeting would enable the Premier of Quebec, if he were to come here to Ottawa, to meet with the other premiers and explain that that is not true. Why? Because in Quebec, we have a cap-and-trade system. We do not regulate the price of pollution, but the amount of pollution. The number of pollution allowances issued was established in advance until 2023, before the Liberal government came to power. It is a bit like the situation with child care centres: Ottawa copies what Quebec does, but perhaps not as well, or with less consensus in society and the other provinces.
In Quebec’s system, the price fluctuates. If at some point energy-consuming or polluting industries want to set up shop in Quebec, the price will go up. If we invest in transition technologies, the price will go down. However, we know we are going to meet our targets, because they are integrated into the system.
It has nothing to do with the federal government. Quebec’s carbon market is tied to that of California, whose economy is larger than Canada’s. If there is someone the California government is not interested in listening to over coffee in the morning, it is the Prime Minister of Canada. They are not interested. California is doing what it is doing because Californians are innovative and forward looking. This system will enable us, by 2030, to reduce our emissions over 1990 levels by 37.5%. It is a system that works.
What is called the Western Climate Initiative is in effect. I did in fact say “Western”. We see that this could include Alberta, which already fits in with the system name. Oregon and Washington have decided to join. The doors are open. We could talk about this. Why are the other provinces not joining this system so that they too can benefit? The doors are wide open.
The system was founded in 2007. The board of directors was made up of people from Quebec, California, Washington State and Nova Scotia. I think we know where that is. Nova Scotia could explain to us why it decided to leave this system, through which it could have paid maybe $47 per metric tonne and focused on innovation and greener growth. That would be a good idea. It was also founded by the governors of Arizona and New Mexico. Arizona and New Mexico are not exactly known for their far-left thinking. Any idea who took part in this system originally? It was Ontario. Ontario decided to voluntarily leave this system, under which it could have participated in a cap-and-trade system with California, Quebec, Oregon, Washington and other players who will be joining.
Naturally, the Conservatives keep telling us that we in Canada are going it alone and that we alone are introducing carbon pricing, making regulations or imposing a structured policy that centres on innovation. In 2023, the World Bank counted 73 pricing systems in the world, which is five more than in 2022. If the Conservatives had their way, it would be zero, but then again they are also in favour of abolishing the UN. There are 69 more systems than there were 20 years ago. There is a global trend. Some people are progressive and want things to move forward, while other people want us to go backwards.
Why am I pointing out how many systems there are? The Conservatives are entitled to be against this. They can have a group dialogue about this. Some do not believe in climate change and others think that taxes are higher. That can be a discussion. However, the reality is very simple.
Take Europe, for example. The European Union has an emissions trading system. Obviously, Europe has major polluters, just like everywhere else. The current system gives these major polluters free allowances. They can pollute. That includes steel mills, aluminum plants and so on. That is the case in these systems, too. They accommodate major polluters as they transition. The system is not anti-industry. They are given allowances, but those allowances are capped. That leaves fewer allowances for other industries, and countries meet their targets. However, the European system is going to wind down.
Europe is not a small place; it is a huge economy. Europe announced that, in 2035, I believe, there will be compensation at the border. Countries and jurisdictions that decide not to do their part in the fight against climate change will pay at the border. Canadian industries will pay. Industries in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia will pay. Quebec industries will be dinged twice when these compensation systems are implemented—and they will be implemented. If Canada does not do its part, we will pay for those who do. What that means for Quebec is unjust treatment at the hands of provinces that have blinders on when it comes to Quebec.
Guess what? The Conservatives will once again claim that this is far-left nonsense, but I think we can all agree that the WTO is not made up of Marxist-Leninists from the Plateau Mont-Royal. The WTO has confirmed that these border adjustments comply with global trade rules. In 10 to 15 years' time, countries that do not contribute to the fight against climate change will be treated the way countries that profit from child labour are treated today. Canada will not be ready.
For all these reasons, I think the preamble could be removed through an amendment. We should always support dialogue. I think all these people need to have a meeting based on premises that are explicitly and implicitly honest.
1598 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:34:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member from across the way has made.
One of the things we should be highlighting is the fact that countries around the world make reference to the province of Ontario and how Ontario had the cap-and-trade system but ultimately opted out. From a personal perspective I think that was a backwards step, because there are many American states that have taken it upon themselves to actually put a price on pollution. The United States as a whole does not have a price on pollution; I guess that is fair to say. However, many American states do, and I think that is something worth noting. In Canada, provinces also have the option; Quebec and B.C. are good examples.
Could the hon. member just expand upon the importance of other jurisdictions?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:36:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I took the time to listen carefully to my colleague. I see a glimmer of common sense in him because it looks like he will be voting with the Conservatives on this motion.
I want to come back to the carbon exchange. As he pointed out, it costs about $47 a tonne in Quebec. Unfortunately, the carbon tax in the other provinces is currently over $80.
In that meeting, what would my colleague's reaction be if the federal Liberal government forced Quebec to increase the price of the carbon exchange so that all Canadians are on the same level, which would put Quebec at a disadvantage with all its experience in the carbon exchange?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:49:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing I reflected on as I was listening to the member and his colleague who spoke before him was that the one constituency where the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to gain a lot of traction in terms of his position on a price on pollution is Quebec. I think that is because Quebec has had a price on pollution for many years, understands the importance of it and understands how the mechanics of it work. However, what I cannot understand is how Conservatives, in particular, Conservatives from Quebec, keep talking about this price on pollution and trying to demonize the policy. They must know that Quebeckers believe in pricing pollution, whether it be through a carbon tax or through cap and trade.
What does the member think about this? Can he wrap his head around why Quebec Conservative MPs keep going on about this, even though they know that Quebeckers, by and large, do not support what they are saying?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:51:16 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think what is funniest in the question raised by my colleague is the reaction by the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who brandished a sheet of paper to criticize the Quebec carbon exchange when she herself was in government when this exchange was implemented. Basically, one could say that she acts one way in Quebec City, and another way in Ottawa. That is precisely why the Conservative Party is not doing better in Quebec, because they often talk out of both sides of their mouth.
I would cite the example Quebec's state secularism act. We never heard the leader of the official opposition say he would respect Quebec's choice. That is not good for him. The same applies to Bill 96, which places French above all other languages in Quebec. We heard the leader of the official opposition say he would challenge that. I have never heard the leader of the official opposition say he agreed with special status for Quebec. Maybe that explains why the Conservative Party is so slow to catch on in Quebec.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:55:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the reasons why the Conservatives do not want to take action on climate change are very simple. The only reason is the oil industry.
Unfortunately, what will that accomplish in the long term? Since everyone is putting a price on carbon, Quebec's competitiveness in its trade with Europe and the United States will be affected because the Conservatives and the Liberals have decided that the economic sector they are going to focus on is the Canadian oil and gas industry.
The only solution for us is independence.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 12:31:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is lovely to hear people combatting the misinformation that comes out of the Conservative Party.
We know that provinces have the option to present an alternative system, and provinces have done that. We see that in Quebec. We see that in British Columbia. We see these provinces also reducing their emissions and having incredible plans when it comes to electric vehicles, hydroelectricity and renewable energy. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to mislead Canadians with this rhetoric that we hear from them not only every day in the House but also when they go to rallies across the country.
I would love to see emergency debates on the critical issues that are facing Canadians, including not only the climate crisis, but also housing, the toxic drug supply and the cost of living crisis. We need to bring provinces and the federal government together to talk about these issues. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives have done this in such a way.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 107 years ago today, on April 9, 1917, a fierce battle began on the slopes of a hill in Vimy, France, between the Canadian Expeditionary Force and the defending German forces.
At 5:30 a.m., a single cannon sounded in the distance. On that signal, all hell broke loose on the battlefield. At the same time, all of the available artillery, supported by underground mines packed with explosives, destroyed the German positions. The infantry, protected by the artillery barrage, rose up and charged toward the enemy trenches.
For some, this battle represents the birth of Canada as a sovereign nation because, for the first time, all divisions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force came together to storm the heavily defended enemy ridge.
Following the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the Canadian army erected a wooden cross on the battlefield in memory of the soldiers who fell in that battle.
When the Vimy Memorial was built, that cross was entrusted to the Royal 22e Régiment and taken to the Quebec Citadel. The cross is still used in ceremonies commemorating the Battle of Vimy Ridge, as it is today.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:10:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Benoît Pelletier.
A published author and distinguished minister in the Government of Quebec, Benoît played an important role in strengthening ties between Quebec and francophone communities across Canada. His bold vision and his commitment to the francophonie marked a major turning point in our country's history. As minister, Benoît worked to promote Quebec's place within Canada's francophonie, leaving a lasting legacy for future generations. Standing up for our language was a cause close to his heart.
The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne awarded him the Boréal Prize. France honoured him with its Ordre des Palmes académiques for his commitment to education.
He was a caring man who loved the Outaouais region, his adopted home. As a legal expert and politician, he left an invaluable political legacy, and his dedication as a lawyer and professor at the University of Ottawa inspired countless students.
My thoughts are with his family. May Benoît rest in peace.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:21:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to meet with the provincial premiers to work on affordability for families and investments in housing.
In Quebec, for example, we have put up $900 million for the housing accelerator fund. Quebec is in the process of matching that amount and investing to build housing across the province.
We are here to work hand in hand with the provinces to fight climate change, fight the housing crisis, invest in young people, invest in seniors and build a stronger future. Meanwhile, the Conservatives continue to preach austerity.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:27:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister interferes with Quebec's jurisdictions like a ship's captain collects life rafts.
Ottawa has no department or expertise in health, education, child care or municipal affairs. People here in Ottawa seem to forget that. However, the Prime Minister has our money because of the fiscal imbalance. Does he recognize that the National Assembly of Quebec has jurisdiction over education, health, child care and municipal affairs?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have always recognized and respected provincial jurisdictions, and we respect Quebec's specificity.
However, even with all the expertise of provincial governments, many Canadians are still looking for housing. Many Canadians are still looking for child care spaces. Families are still struggling. As the federal government, we are here to work in partnership with Quebec and the provinces, to invest in the supports that people need. Yes, the federal government has money, but we are here to invest with the provinces. That is what it takes to help people.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:28:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when my car breaks down, I do not give my money to the dentist.
The people in Ottawa do not understand that. They have to create all sorts of expertise in areas of jurisdiction that are not theirs. Does the Prime Minister realize that if he interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions, it is going to take longer, be more expensive and it will not improve anything?
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:29:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we will always work hand in hand with the provinces to provide the services that Canadians need.
However, speaking of dentists, 1.7 million seniors across the country have registered for our dental care program that will be offered across the country, including in Quebec. We are here to ensure that seniors in Quebec and the rest of the country have the necessary services and the health care that they could not afford before this year. We are here to contribute to the well-being of Quebeckers and all Canadians. We will always work respectfully in partnership with the provinces to do so.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:35:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition seems so fond of Mark Carney these days, who actually, as the member says, does believe in a price on pollution. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should listen to him.
However, with respect to the premiers, it is important to know that the premiers have every right to submit a plan that actually meets the federal benchmark and to put in place their own price on pollution. That is something that British Columbia has done. That is something that Quebec has done.
Premier Moe was actually here recently and testified before the committee. Premier Moe said that he looked at alternatives to the price on pollution and found every one of them to be too expensive. This is from the guy who had no climate plan, no—
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 2:40:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member and minister from Quebec City that I am well aware of what is happening in my riding and that, yes, people are struggling right now. Yes, inflation directly affects them. Yes, this government keeps spending recklessly without any control. That is fuelling inflation. When the government does not control its spending, it fuels inflation.
The member and minister is also a seasoned academic. When he goes back to his university, how will explain to his future students that a budget can balance itself, as the Prime Minister claims?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
