- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I think people try to complicate things sometimes. They pick a title that is four or five lines long—which is a waste of ink and not very environmentally friendly—so people will not read it.
I said this in my speech, and I will say it again. There will be a transition. It must be equitable, it must be just and it must benefit workers. It must not make them poorer. The transition will create huge opportunities for wealth creation, new technology, innovation, investment and export. If we focus only on oil, we will miss out. We will have to take the time. It will be hard. We need to prepare. That is very important. Around the world, everywhere but here in the House, people are calling this the just transition.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am surprised we are having a Conservative opposition day where the Conservatives are asking the government to come up with a plan to balance the budget in eight days. They are saying that five years is too long. One has to be reasonable. It depends on the project. I can tell my colleague that most of what is in the bill already exists in Quebec. We do not need additional resources or bureaucracy, but we will need the money to implement whatever is decided.
Sometimes reports and consultation are needed. The right people need to be appointed in the right places. Unions, employers and educational institutions all need to be included. We have to do it right. We must also not rush to produce as many reports as possible as quickly as possible, only for them to be shelved. There has to be a balance between the amount of bureaucracy and the usefulness of it all. The usefulness of what is in the bill is greatly reduced in Quebec, if not non-existent, because we have already thought of all this. We are simply waiting for the resources to be able to do more.
Obviously, those resources are in Ottawa.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree. The point of my speech was to defend the very idea that the member for Timmins—James Bay raised. The trouble is that the NDP often talks about the importance of regional voices, but only until Quebec's jurisdictions come into play. In this case, regional voices and respecting regional voices means respecting Quebec, the agreements and the labour market partners commission, and integrating asymmetry.
If the other provinces decide that the framework presented in the bill suits them, and that reports might help them advance because these institutions bring together community stakeholders, the unions my colleague was talking about, if that does not exist in those provinces, then let them take the first step. However, this must never be done at the expense of recognizing what Quebec has already done. Why should we make an effort, advance, innovate and set an example if, every time the federal government is 20 years behind us, it decides not to recognize Quebec for its efforts?
I think that the NDP also needs to keep that in mind when we study this bill and make amendments to it.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague has hit on something. He is asking whether we saw anything in the bill that will create jobs. There is nothing there. There is talk about reports by officials, people appointed from the “Liberalist” who will submit reports, and about things that have already been done. There is nothing there.
I know that this is difficult for people from Alberta and western Canada. They have a resource-based economy. They have good-paying jobs. I understand them. I sympathize with that. The Bloc Québécois is always asking the Conservatives to show some openness, to think about the long term, to discuss this issue. We are debating. We get along. We are able to disagree.
However, when the Liberals come here and say that they want to train people, set up boards and produce reports, they should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of an Albertan who is waiting for the just transition and who is waiting to be convinced. It does not help the environment to have a bill like this one in which the government is unable to define objectives and methods, in which the government is asking people to simply trust it. It is always a big risk to believe a Liberal who tells us to trust them.
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is what I call “Winnipeg-Northsplaining”.
When the Liberals introduced legislation for child care transfers, they asked us if we had read the bill. They told us there was money to fund child care so women could enter the labour market. They asked us if we had read it. They told us they had targets and funding. We told them it had already been done in Quebec. In fact, they were the ones who had not read Quebec's legislation.
Basically, the parliamentary secretary is telling us that he knows it is worthwhile because it already exists in Quebec and it works. The federal government still has this obsession with duplicating everything. Apparently, this government is allergic to efficiency.
When these councils were created in Quebec, I was not yet old enough to vote. Now, I am starting to think about retirement, and the parliamentary secretary has yet to read the Quebec legislation. I invite him to read it.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I see that I received applause from a Conservative. Apart from you, Mr. Speaker, he is the only one who still claps for me. We will see how long that lasts.
The Bloc Québécois's position is clear. It is imperative that we change our energy trajectory so that Canada, which still includes Quebec, for now, contributes to the effort to prevent average temperatures from rising by 1.5°C. That is essential. We are talking about the future of humanity, the health of our people, the safety of our communities and the future of generations to come. We have to make the effort. That means we have to stop ratcheting up our fossil fuel production. That is point number one. The International Energy Agency says we must not start any new oil and gas production projects. By 2030, we need to gradually reduce oil production, which is part of the problem.
It is completely wrong to think that some kind of capture technology is going to let us increase oil production while reducing our absolute emissions. I am not talking about emissions per barrel, but absolute emissions. These are basic scientific facts. By reducing our oil production, we will gain access to large sums of public money, which is currently being disproportionately invested in fossil fuels. This money could be directed elsewhere so that Canada can transition to a 21st-century economy, focused on the long term, on the future of coming generations and on renewable energy.
We stand in solidarity with the workers who will have to participate in this process. When the Trans Mountain project began, we did not just say that the government should not invest money in that project and that there would be cost overruns. We know that the project is costing over $30 billion. What we said was that we should take that money that was in the Canadian public purse and use it for the transition, for good-paying jobs in the high-tech sector that produce technologies that can be exported, namely, energy storage technologies. By so doing, we would not impoverish communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, who are the primary victims of the lack of transition, who will be among those who will pay the most, and who will be even more disproportionately affected when finally do make the transition when it is too late and it is even more urgent.
The government has done enough greenwashing. We need to take action. Obviously, when we talk about greenwashing, I cannot help but think about this bill, which basically contains nothing of what I just talked about. There is nothing about any of that in this bill. The Liberals are saying that they want to train workers in the clean energy sector, but they are investing billions of dollars in dirty energy. Clean energy workers do not need this bill. They need an employment insurance system that works.
We learned from the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that half of all workers are not covered by employment insurance. When I look at the federal government's investment strategies, and when I look at the Conservatives' plans, I am not sure I would want to apply to set up a wind turbine project. It has been so devalued.
What would it take? First, we need commitments and principles. This bill turns the process upside down and says that workers are going to be trained. It does not begin with what needs to come first. There is no commitment and there are no principles and no targets. It proposes solutions to a problem that has not been defined. Kafka himself could not have come up with this.
Next, we need a collaborative approach. They forget sometimes, but we are in a federation. There are provinces and municipalities. There are ecosystems in the labour market. There are communities, regions, workers, unions, employers, chambers of commerce and investors. There needs to be consultation. The democratic and civic process in the communities needs to be respected, but that is not covered in the bill. The bill provides that committees will submit reports, and it is not quite clear what will be done with those reports. We know that endless reports are issued here, and we know where they end up. They end up in a place where no one reads them. That is what will happen.
Once we have done all that, then we need measures to achieve the objectives. We need to think of the workers, the communities and the first nations communities. That is not happening at all. The provincial jurisdictions will need to be respected. There will need to be requirements for the planning and production of sectoral reports that cannot solely be the federal government's responsibility.
Labour law is under provincial jurisdiction. The workforce in Quebec has been under Quebec's jurisdiction since the 1990s. Everyone knows that. There are agreements, there is funding. It has not always been easy, but we have those things today. That is not reflected in the bill.
My take on this bill is that I do not doubt the intentions behind it, although given that the title completely eliminates the concept of the just transition, one can doubt the government's intentions. However, the whole thing feels improvised to me. The bill does not define a problem, yet it tries to find solutions. It is funny how the Liberals think a report is the solution to everything.
Since being elected, I have been bewildered to learn that committees work to submit reports to the government, and we vote on motions, but the government never reads them. Why, then, would it read the reports that are going to be produced under this bill? That is not plausible. That is where things stand.
The worst part is that the bill speaks to the government's utter ignorance, whether deliberate or not—if it is deliberate, then that is even worse—of Quebec's regional realities and Quebec's labour market. It is a bit like what happened with the early childhood centres. We are way ahead when it comes to skills training and collaboration on skills training. It seems like the federal government always waits 30, 40, 20 or 15 years. It dilly-dallies before eventually saying that Quebec is right and that it will try to push the other provinces to follow Quebec's example. That is precisely what is going on here. There will need to be asymmetry.
In the 1990s, Quebec voiced its demands on workplace skills training. In the 1990s, there were discussions about professional training, which led to federal transfers to Quebec for workplace skills training. This bill is on skills training, but Quebec does that, and it is good at it. If results matter, then the government should be consulting Quebec.
On June 22, 1995, the National Assembly passed the Act to Foster the Development of Manpower Training. Since then, Quebec has been in charge of workplace training. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, this reform is based on partnerships. In 1997, Quebec created the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. This labour market partners commission repatriated active employment measures from the federal government to Quebec, and are working together to find innovative solutions, not just in green energy, but in all sectors, because every region of Quebec is different. Who are these people? The group brings together employers, employees, labourers, the education sector, universities, vocational training schools, community organizations and economic and social ministries that are familiar with Quebec's realities. It is working. Ottawa needs to stop ignoring that.
When we have immigration files in our ridings, we wait months for labour market surveys for each immigration file when those labour market studies have already been done in each region and in each sector. They are meant to determine what the needs are, what the needs will be in the future, how to plan and how to do things better. By deliberately ignoring Quebec with this bill, the government is saying that it does not want to do better. If Quebeckers want things to be better, they can vote for the Bloc Québécois, because we always defend Quebec's jurisdictions.
What should we do with this bill? We are thinking about it. It is not easy, but maybe something can be done with it. We are thinking it over. For starters, the government needs to listen to these concerns. It needs to consult Quebec. When we asked officials in committee if they consulted Quebec, they said it did not occur to them to do so. They turned red as ripe tomatoes, much like the tomatoes grown in my riding, which are redder than those grown elsewhere. When money is being allocated to implementing the strategies in the bill, Quebec will have to get its fair share. Negotiating labour agreements has never been easy.
Moreover, the government has to honour the Paris Agreement. It also has to honour the COP26 just transition declaration. The generally accepted term in the international community is “just transition”, which emphasizes the importance of making the energy transition and doing so in a way that serves everyone now, in all provinces and all communities, as well as future generations. As for the bill's title, my mouth dried out by the time I finished saying it. That is because someone is trying to hide something.
I think there is a lot of work to be done, and I invite all parties to take the blinders off and really consider Quebec's reality and its institutions. If objectives and achieving those objectives is so important, the government should take a step back and consult the Quebec government.
1648 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed reading my hon. colleague's bill. It is very interesting. The intention is sincere, and it could be impactful. Kudos to my colleague, and I thank him.
This bill talks about concentration in the economy and the importance of diversifying the economy. As we know, having an extremely concentrated economy primarily in the provinces that produce very polluting resources has an important impact not only on those provinces, but also on the rest of the country and Quebec.
The first thing we need to talk about is the environment. We all know that one Albertan produces six times more greenhouse gas emissions than a Quebecker. One Saskatchewanian produces seven times more than a Quebecker. That is substantial.
Next is resilience. A poorly diversified economy is less resilient in the face of stress, recessions, geopolitical uncertainties and pandemics.
There is also dependence. Anytime too much of the economy is focused on a single resource or group of resources, that creates dependence.
Conservative members like to say that Quebec and other provinces depend on equalization. However, the greatest example of dependence in this country is Alberta's dependence on oil. I will give an example. I had a lot of fun looking at Alberta's old budgets. I like public finances. There are normally very few surprises in the public finances of the provinces, but Alberta was pleasantly surprised this year.
Based on last year's projections, Alberta was expected to run a deficit of almost $11 billion for the 2022-23 fiscal year. All of a sudden, a $500-million surplus is announced. The Alberta government appears to be a genius at managing public funds.
The difference between the two Alberta budgets is that royalties on what they very affectionately call “bitumen” have increased by almost $8 billion. That is what magically covered nearly 70% of the province's deficit. Note that if Alberta had a value-added tax, a sales tax like most industrialized countries that know how to tax properly, like Quebec and the other provinces, like Europe, there would no longer be a deficit.
Yes, those provinces need to diversify their economy.
Beyond that, the market concentration can be calculated. Without getting into any detail, there are concentration indicators, such as the Herfindahl-Hirschman index. When we look at the concentration of Alberta's exports, the index is six times higher than that of Quebec, Ontario and the Canadian average, depending on the year. The most recent reliable statistics that I have date back to 2017. They are a few years old, but when we were debating the situation in Ukraine, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills did not hesitate to refer to a report from 2015 to say that we needed to produce more. I do not think that it will bother anyone that I am using data from 2017, but as an economist, I can say that the basic gist remains the same.
Yes, we need to diversify the economy.
Since I have been a member of the House, I have heard a lot of talk about diversification, in particular from those sitting next to me. Is there a problem with western Canada's public finances? Let us diversify and produce more oil. Is global warming a problem? Let us produce more oil and hope that, in 70 years, when the oceans have risen by three centimetres, we are able to sequester greenhouse gas emissions. That is pretty obvious.
On a more serious note, I would say that the Conservatives even used the war in Ukraine to try to justify the construction of pipelines that will take 10 to 15 years to complete. We are not talking about Keystone XL; we are talking about forever. They are trying to sell us that. It is serious.
I am a relatively new MP. In passing, I would like to say hello to my constituents in Mirabel and thank them for electing me six months ago. Parliament is a rumour mill. We hear things in the halls and secrets in the cafeteria. It would seem the Conservatives are thinking about putting oil in Canada's food guide.
It seems that this would resolve the problem of diversifying our diet. However, they do not agree at all. Some are wondering if it will be in with the fruits and vegetables. Others are wondering if it will be in with the meats and alternatives. I think it will end up with the dairy products because some people will put oil on their cereal in the morning. Since there is a leadership race, this question will likely be settled in September, or at least we hope so.
Let us come back to serious matters. This is an interesting bill that says that within 18 months after coming into force, the ministers concerned will meet with stakeholders. It says that they will have to make recommendations and reflect—it is a smart process, we admit it—that the report will have to be tabled in the House and brought to the attention of members, and that the process will have to be repeated every five years.
However, let us make sure that these reports do not end up like all the other reports, including the IPCC report. The government shows interest for a day and then throws it in the trash.
The same thing happened to the report of the commissioner of the environment. The commissioner blamed the government. We then asked questions in the House, but to listen to them talk one would believe that the commissioner was congratulating them. They need to do something else with these reports other than say that diversification will be paid for with more oil.
I, too, would like to see major research being conducted in Alberta. I have several university friends there, and I know that some research is already being done. I, too, want to see excellence, but this must be financed with something other than royalties.
Alberta must become less dependent. Their public finances indicate just how vulnerable Alberta is. When the price of oil goes up, everything is good; when the price of oil goes down, things are very bad. When things are good, they want more of it; when things are bad, their solution is to have more. Alberta and oil, it is like nicotine. When you miss it, you smoke more; when you smoke more, you cannot stop.
In the process that will lead us to reflect on this bill, I hope that we will find ourselves in a situation where we are constructive, forward-looking and do not continue to invest in an industry of the past. We must look ahead more than 10 years and stop relying on an industry in decline. Canada's history shows us that it has not always been easy. In former times, with the Pearson government, Canada's policy focused on buying Canadian.
We know they are very interested in the price of oil. Well, they were selling us their oil for more than the global price. That profit margin enabled them to develop the western oil sands, which cost a lot more to exploit than conventional oil because of the three processing stages.
In 2009, the Harper government said it would eliminate inefficient oil subsidies, whatever that means. Anyway, it does not matter what it means because the government did nothing. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement, our banks have invested $609 billion of our money, our savings, in non-renewable energy projects, in oil. That is a total of $609 billion, including $84 billion for coal. This is the 21st century, but we are investing in coal. It feels like we are back in the days of old locomotives.
There are solutions, in particular industry-led ones. This has to be a two-way street. The Bloc Québécois has made a lot of green finance proposals because the transition must be financially worthwhile. We need to ensure that the big capital is going to the right place, that investors have an incentive to invest, and that effective price signals are sent. We can use taxation, a savings tax. Transparency in the banking system is lacking. I want to know if my bank is investing my money in dirty oil. I will then make my own decision, but I want to know.
We are talking about maybe working on the fiduciary duties of pension funds, which invest our pensions for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, when this industry is expected to be on the decline. We are talking about norms, about norms from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, or TCFD, about other norms that could be applied to Crown corporations, and so on.
There is a lot to think about. There is a lot of work to be done. We need to get a lot of people around the table. I read this bill with great interest and I hope that it will produce something constructive for the future of people in western Canada.
1526 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
