SoVote

May/9/24 9:08:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, as I said in my speech, they have no intention of meeting their greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. They say they do, but look at what the United States found out. It seems clear to me that oil and gas companies in Canada definitely do not want to stop production. The money is for their shareholders, and most of those shareholders are foreign companies. Wonderful. Capital is leaving the country, yet we kowtow to oil companies, promising them billions of dollars.

84 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

May/9/24 9:09:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act. The government worked collaboratively and very closely with Bloc and NDP members to strengthen the provisions within the Competition Act that deal with products that claim to be sustainable and also general claims that companies may make. I think those provisions in the Competition Act really prevent against greenwashing and ensure that companies have to substantiate and have evidence for the claims they make. Could the member opposite speak to whether she supports that and whether she will be supporting Bill C-59 as a result?

102 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/9/24 9:10:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member knows the Bloc Québécois's position on that. Yes, there have been improvements and we are not saying that we need to start from scratch. We never said that. What we are saying is that it does not make sense to be giving oil companies billions of dollars, like we are doing now. It is funny because we were talking about greenwashing recently at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The commissioner gave a really good definition of it in one of his reports. It is a shame that I do not have it here with me, but I will give an example of greenwashing. Whether we are talking about carbon capture and storage for oil companies or the much-talked-about SMRs, it is ridiculous to think that nuclear energy is clean energy. That is absolutely ridiculous. Nuclear energy has never been clean energy. The more elected members buy into that idea, the further we will sink into another form of greenwashing.

173 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

May/9/24 9:10:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her wonderful speech on the environment. It was very clear and straightforward. I would like to ask her the following question. Does she see any interference in Bill C-59 and does she see even more of it in Bill C-69?

51 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

May/9/24 9:11:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She also made a good speech, in which she spoke about the billions of dollars going to oil companies. We need to look at the root of government interference, which is fiscal imbalance. What does that mean? First, Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs. Second, Ottawa uses that financial leeway to interfere in areas outside its jurisdiction. That is exactly what the government is doing with Bill C-59 and Bill C-69. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it himself: If the trend continues, eventually the provincial governments, including Quebec, will be virtually bankrupt, while the federal government will see its revenues increase. What will the result be? The federal government will be able to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It is an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa's hands. That is one of the many reasons why we will be voting against these two bills.

159 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/9/24 9:12:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there seems to be so little interest in the fall economic statement, that I do not think there is quorum.

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 9:12:27 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows full well there are no quorum calls at this point. If he would like, I can send him the document so he does not have to raise the point of order again. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basques.

50 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/9/24 9:12:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, a leopard cannot change its spots. Once again, it is clear that the Liberal government is trying to interfere in Quebec's affairs and fantasizing about taking over jurisdictions that do not belong to it and in which it has no expertise. Why? Maybe it is trying to justify its existence and appear relevant. Budget 2024 and this bill are perfect examples of that. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑59. Let me say this loud and clear: The federal government's unabashed assault on Quebec's jurisdictions is scandalous. By choosing to create a federal department of municipal affairs, which it calls the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, Ottawa is announcing yet more interference in how Quebec runs its internal affairs. The size of the public service has jumped by 42%, or 109,000 public servants, and the tax burden has increased by $20 billion, but the Liberal government wants to make the public service even bigger, doubling its army of highly paid public servants, whose thankless task it will be to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and who will give the federal government the organizational capacity to impose even more conditions on Quebec and municipalities. It is readily apparent that this massive public servant hiring campaign will make it easier to coordinate the centralization of power and decision-making in Ottawa. The father of the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, tried a similar approach when he created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in 1971. The experiment was a dismal failure. As the saying goes, like father, like son. We need the humility to learn from our past mistakes in order to avoid repeating them. As a proud regionalist and elected official in a riding that includes 39 municipalities and three regional county municipalities, commonly known as RCMs, I know what I am talking about. Many of them are already having a hard time getting what they are owed from the federal government, because of funding that never arrives on time or cuts in financial support for the cultural sector, for example. Why complicate the process with more delays, costs, disputes and even more delays? Municipalities need fast, effective and direct action to address the various issues. They are the ones that deliver services most directly to the public. The federal government, however, is doing the exact opposite by adding more layers of red tape that will only increase costs and lengthen delays. I should also point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said, about federal services, “public services themselves appear to have deteriorated. Not all of them are at the level one would expect from the public service.” Do my fellow citizens really want the federal government to manage more things? Well, no. The really sad thing about this part of Bill C‑59 is that the Liberals are offering a solution that no one asked for instead of meeting expectations within their own areas of jurisdiction, and that is really detrimental. I feel like I am repeating myself, but the housing crisis we are currently experiencing, which is dragging on because of half measures that do not solve the problem, must be addressed quickly. People are suffering. Social housing in particular has been chronically underfunded since the 1990s, yet the federal government is not stepping up. Instead, it is trying to take even more responsibility despite its ineffectiveness and incompetence in other matters. The vacancy rate in Rimouski is 0.6%. A balanced market sits at 3%. That means it is almost impossible to find housing. Families are living in motels. It is disgraceful. It is not just in my riding, either. My colleagues and neighbours throughout the Lower St. Lawrence are in similar situations, with a rate of 0.7% in Rivière-du-Loup and 1.2% in Matane. The answer is simple. We are asking the federal government to stop trying to manage everything, to stop micromanaging, and to simply do what is expected of it, which is to transfer the money to the Quebec government, unconditionally. Then we can tackle the crisis and try to resolve it. The Bloc Québécois is not going to make concessions. We will stand firm. Let us now talk about the second major concern that we have with this bill. While we want to do away with fossil fuels, the Liberals are reminding us that they are great allies of the oil companies by adding a $30.3-billion subsidy in the form of tax credits paid for by taxpayers. I am talking about the taxpayers who are watching us at home this evening. That $30.3 billion belongs to them. This is not really surprising. We know that Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's policy. The image that comes to mind is that of a firefighter arsonist. In Rimouski, these same super wealthy companies are increasing the cost of gas for residents, sometimes by up to 20¢ overnight. They have a virtual monopoly and yet they are putting a huge burden on the shoulders of those who depend on their vehicles to get around, make a living and get to work. I already know that some members will tell me that those individuals can just use public transit to get around. They are right, but when the federal government abandons the regions to focus on large urban centres, then public transit in the regions is obviously not sufficient to offer a real alternative to vehicle use. The Lower St. Lawrence has practically no trains or buses anymore. The number of weekly private bus departures has gone from 6,000 to 882 since 1981. That is an 85% drop. I met the heads of Via Rail recently. They told me that the trains that go to Rimouski have been in service since the 1950s or 1960s, that the rail cars are at the end of their useful life and that these lines will have to be shut down in a few years if the federal government does not invest in them soon. That means we are going to lose one of our last links to the rest of Quebec if the government continues to do nothing. This situation has been going on for too long. Budget 2024 was not the boost we were looking for to save the regional connections. I get the impression that we are going backward. Our ancestors who built the railway must be rolling over in their graves looking at their descendants shutting it down, when we do not even have an alternative in place. Is the federal government waiting to swoop in at the last minute like a hero at the risk of further isolating the regions? I will not get into the fact that there are virtually no flights in the regions. The wonderful corporate citizens at Air Canada took advantage of the public health crisis to cease their operations in June 2020 and they never came back to our region, or to the Mont-Joli regional airport, more specifically. As a result of all of these transportation problems, some of my constituents now even have to take a taxi to Quebec City to get hospital services. I hold the federal government responsible for that, because it is refusing to abide by its agreement to cover 50% of Quebec's health care costs, which compromises access to health care and the development of these kinds of services in the regions. Now, if the billions of dollars earmarked for oil companies had instead been allocated to transportation, imagine how much the government could have actually improved the situation. We see that the government's priorities are not always in the right place and that the regions still do not matter to the Liberals. They basically never do. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-59, which both encroaches on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and demonstrates the full extent of the Liberal government's hypocrisy. There has never been a more centralizing government. I get the impression that it wants to revise the definition of a confederation. We are no longer in a confederation; we are under a central government that wants to appropriate all the powers and change the rules of the game without consulting the players. I would even go so far as to say that the rules of the game are constitutional agreements. We cannot take it lightly when agreements with partners are not being upheld. The government claims to want meaningful collaboration with its partners, yet it does not even respect its own agreements with its so-called partners. Moreover, we will not support the creation of a department whose main task will be to interfere more aggressively in Quebec's jurisdictions and double the government's army of public servants. Nor will we support the $30.3 billion subsidy to ultrarich oil companies that will undoubtedly compromise our ecosystems and slow down the energy transition that Quebec is spearheading. That concludes my speech. I welcome questions and comments from my colleagues.

1548 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

May/9/24 9:22:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the fall economic statement is supposed to build an economy that works for all Canadians, but I can tell from the member's comments that clearly it is not working for the economy in Quebec. I wonder what the member thinks the government should have put forward in order to promote the economy in Quebec.

57 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

May/9/24 9:23:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that goes, “If you want something done right, do it yourself”. That is good, because the Bloc Québécois is a separatist party. It is in favour of independence. It wants to take care of its own business by itself, for itself, without needing anything from a federal government that does not always share Quebec's priorities. As my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton just said, this is clearly a direct attack on Quebec's jurisdictions. The government no longer wants to let us make decisions for ourselves, by ourselves, for the well-being of our people and in accordance with our priorities. There is no way we can vote in favour of something that is not in line with our constituents' priorities. Our autonomy is being compromised. There was not even any consultation. That is completely unacceptable. We are therefore well within our rights to vote against this bill, another brazen attack on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

170 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/9/24 9:24:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the importance of people being able to make ends meet, there are two things in this bill that stand out for me. One is around the pregnancy loss leave, which would establish a new paid leave for workers in federally regulated sectors who experience loss of pregnancy. When talking to constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, this is something that comes up often. Another piece that stands out is the adoption benefit for employment insurance, which introduces a 15-week EI benefit for adoptive parents. I really appreciate seeing items like this being included to make sure that caregivers and those who have experienced the loss of a child are able to take the time necessary either to be with their loved ones or to grieve the loss of a loved one. I am wondering if the member can share if he feels that those are important items that we have in place for Canadians across the country.

166 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

May/9/24 9:25:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of this measure, which finally recognizes how distressing such situations can be for parents. We did not wait for the federal government to create our child care system. It has been around for 25 years. The same goes for our other social programs, such as the Quebec parental insurance plan, which has been around for many years. Quebec has a strong social safety net. Again, we did not wait for help from the federal government. The Quebec parental insurance plan provides between 15 and 18 weeks of benefits after the type of situation my colleague mentioned, whether it was a spontaneous miscarriage or a planned termination. There is an adjustment that varies depending on the situation, but all that is to say that this is a good measure. However, just because there is one small measure in a sea of bad measures does not mean that we are going to support this budget. When things are good, we have to say so. When they are not so good, we should not be shy about saying so either.

190 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

May/9/24 9:26:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the regions, which we know have needs with regard to transportation and airports. I would like him to explain the needs we have in the regions.

32 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 9:26:36 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has one minute to answer.

18 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

May/9/24 9:26:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will take me a lot longer than a minute to make the federal government understand that the regions exist and that they have specific needs, just like Quebec, which is also distinguished by its nationhood and its own specific needs. Air transportation is practically non-existent in the regions. When its pals at Air Canada ask for millions or billions of dollars in wage subsidies, the government is there to help. However, when it comes to providing services to regular folks and putting planes on the tarmac, the government is nowhere to be seen. As for rail transportation, our friends at Via Rail want financial support to renew their rolling stock, which is so old it cannot run any longer. It requires constant patch-ups and repairs. In the near future, what will happen? How will the trains keep running? Once again, the government is abandoning public transit, especially in the regions of Quebec. That is completely unacceptable. It compromises life in the regions, including the empowerment and growth of rural residents.

175 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

May/9/24 9:27:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the fall economic statement for the constituents of Kootenay—Columbia and for Canadians. After nine years, the Prime Minister has repeatedly demonstrated a concerning lack of regard for the best interests of Canadians. The pattern is unmistakable and is underscored by a persistent tendency toward overspending that has become all too familiar. Instead of prioritizing the needs and concerns of Canadian citizens, the Prime Minister has consistently favoured overspending, disregarding a balanced budget essential for economic growth. The irresponsible approach not only undermines the trust and confidence of Canadians, but also jeopardizes the long-term economic stability and prosperity of our nation. It is our duty, as representatives of the people, to hold our leaders to account and to demand accountability for their actions. We must ensure the government's spending is aligned with priorities and the values of Canadians, promoting transparency, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability at every turn. The Prime Minister's track record of overspending serves as a stark reminder that he refuses to acknowledge the role in Canada's massive debt, which has grown to a staggering $1.2 trillion. It is an absolutely unfathomable amount. Along with that debt comes interest. The interest is $54 billion. To put this into perspective, $54 billion is more than what we spend on a Canada health transfer to support provinces and territorial health care. It is deeply disturbing and downright offensive to Canadians that the NDP-Liberal government treats our constituents' hard-earned money this way. The level of management is unacceptable and undermines the fundamental trust between constituents and elected officials. We owe it to our constituents, frankly, to do better. It is not just about fulfilling our duties as elected representatives, but also about honouring the trust and confidence our citizens have placed in us to steward our nation's resources wisely and responsibly. There is a profound expectation for us to make decisions that will foster prosperity and progress for our country, to build a Canada that Canadian citizens are proud to call home. Regrettably, what I am hearing from my constituents paints a different picture. The country's debt has a ripple effect that touches every aspect of our society. One area where we see this impact is in housing. The cost of housing has skyrocketed to the point where many young families in their thirties are realizing that their dream of owning a home may never become a reality. They have resorted to renting from homeowners who are also experiencing record-breaking interest rates on their mortgages, which is forcing higher rent increases. At the same time, our population is growing rapidly, but we are not building enough homes to accommodate everyone. The imbalance between supply and demand is inflaming the housing crisis and is making it more difficult for people to afford housing. Those who try to help are denied. Stephen from Revelstoke reached out to me regarding his grant application, which is approximately $15 million over the course of a few years to a housing accelerator fund that he and his organization had been denied. Realizing that the lack of housing and affordability is the number one issue in Revelstoke, the same as in many other communities, especially those in the hospitality and tourism industry, Stephen was curious how the communities would keep up with demand. They were shovel-ready, yet they were told they were too organized, so they would not be getting the funding. Another area where we see increases is with taxes. Allan from Kimberley wrote to me quoting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying that the budget is “to help Canadians.” However, in his words, he said that it would not help his granddaughters, aged 3 and 14, and that they would be the ones to pay for the federal debt when they start work. Brenda from Creston is frustrated and wrote to say that surely it is understood that burdening the already overly burdened public with yet more taxes is unfair, while those in office take liberties with how they spend money. She said that she was adding her voice to those who have already asked that steps be taken to reduce spending and that the Government of Canada identify with its citizens during these expensive times. In other words, they are asking that the Government of Canada be accountable to the taxpayers. Rick from Cranbrook said that he just wanted to drop a quick email to state his opposition to the budget. He said that it does nothing and provides no benefit for Canadians other than the privilege of paying a rapidly increasing proportion of their taxes to service ballooning debt. Again, it is $53 billion. My constituents are fed up. They are fed up with the financial stress, the limited financial flexibility due to higher interest payments, the lack of economic growth and the certain intergenerational burden the government has brought upon us. A question asked by many is about how such a resource-rich country is in so much debt. With the minerals, forestry and energy, we should be global leaders and well into the black. The lengthy permitting process for new mines in Canada can take up to 25 years to get approval. This is a significant challenge for the mining industry and hinders the timely development and export of critical minerals. To address these challenges, it is essential for the government to allocate the necessary resources to expedite environmental reviews and permitting processes. The government has to recognize the need to accelerate the permitting processes and the production of the critical minerals that are essential for a variety of industries, including technology, renewable energy and defence. However, these permitting policies continue to undermine Canada's attractiveness to mining, investments and others. Trail has critical minerals, and the Elk Valley has steel coal, a critical mineral for steel. Yesterday, KC Recycling came to Ottawa to talk about how it recycles 95% of lead-acid batteries, yet we are still shipping batteries from Canada to third-world countries instead of recycling them here. The ongoing U.S.-Canada softwood dispute has placed Canadian manufacturers in a prolonged period of uncertainty with no negotiated settlement in sight. The extended period of instability has a significant impact on the forest industry, limiting its ability to generate revenue and to contribute to the economic growth of our country. Canadian lumber producers are burdened with punitive tariffs that impede their competitiveness and that hinder their ability to thrive in the global market. The imposition of tariffs has not only undermined the profitability of Canadian lumber exports, but also exasperates the existing challenges faced by manufacturers, including the rising production costs, supply chain interruptions and market unrest. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding softwood lumber stifles innovation within the industry, hindering long-term capability. Canada has an abundance of natural gas, especially in British Columbia and Alberta. Exporting liquefied natural gas to the EU presents a fantastic opportunity to tap into a new market and potentially to boost our economy. Selling LNG to the EU could play a critical role in diversifying Canada's energy exports. Right now, we rely on the U.S. market for energy exports, which leaves us vulnerable to shifts in its energy policies and market conditions. By expanding our reach to the EU, we could spread out our risk and could ensure a more stable income stream for our natural gas industry. Moreover, exporting LNG to the EU aligns with global efforts in the transition to cleaner or more sustainable energy sources. Natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal and oil, and supplying LNG to the EU could help it reduce its carbon emissions and meet its energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way. This can strengthen Canada's reputation as a responsible energy producer. Additionally, fostering strong economic ties with the EU through energy trade can enhance our diplomatic relations and co-operation with other countries. It is a win-win situation that benefits both Canada and the EU. With the basic examples provided, it is absolutely a disservice to Canadians for the NDP-Liberal government to not try harder to keep the debt down and balance the budget. Every family knows that if they spend more than they bring in, they go into debt. The main difference is they realize they have to pay back their debt, while the Prime Minister tries to pay back his debt by increasing taxes on Canadians. When will the Prime Minister own up to his financial failings, admit we need to do better and balance the budget?

1444 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/9/24 9:36:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I pose my question to the hon. member, I too want to express my sincere condolences on the passing of a Canadian icon and a Canadian treasure this evening, Rex Murphy. The Speaker seems surprised. Obviously, this is news to him. On the reverse of that, I want to wish Lillian Vaughan, a Barrie—Innisfil resident, a happy 105th birthday today. I know that she is a big supporter of the Barrie Colts. She is at home this evening with Bryan and Jennifer. Happy birthday to Lillian. Rural Canada is obviously a big part of the member's riding. I wonder if he can talk about the fall economic statement, the latest budget and their impact on rural Canada. I represent half a rural constituency in Innisfil, and I find there is a disproportionate negative impact on rural Canada. I wonder if he could speak about that.

151 words

The Speaker

May/9/24 9:37:45 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for informing the House of the passing of a great Canadian. I also wish a happy birthday to Lillian. The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia,.

31 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

May/9/24 9:37:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the thing about rural Canada is that we have to drive. We have to drive our families to events, whether it is for school events or whether it is for a hockey game, and some of our driving is 300 kilometres, sometimes further. Our seniors have to drive to go to medical appointments, which could be in hospitals that are 200 to 300 kilometres away. Where it gets difficult is with the rising price of the carbon tax for our people who use vehicles. We do not have transit systems like downtown Toronto. It is very disproportionate, and it makes it very hard for those on a limited budget, like seniors, to be able to afford to go get the help that they need.

126 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/9/24 9:38:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the tail end of the member's speech, he was talking about LNG. Let us call it what it is: It is methane, CH4. No one here will argue that, when burned, it is cleaner than coal. That is a scientific fact. I do not think people have a problem with the burning of it; it is the unburned methane that is a very real problem. When that escapes into the atmosphere, it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is. I think the real problem is that Canada has many abandoned and leaky wells. Often, the companies that have exploited that gas have left it to the people of Canada and our tax dollars to clean up. I want to hear a serious response from the Conservatives on how they address that problem. We are not disputing the fact that it is cleaner-burning than coal, but what do we do with the leaky wells that we have often had to pick up the tab for?

173 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 312