- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- Nov/2/23 12:01:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I am able to talk about the ecological footprint of hydroelectricity because that is what we chose. When we decided to branch out into this sector, it was not an easy choice. Everyone said that Quebec was crazy. Some places were turning to nuclear energy, while others were opting for fossil fuels.
Quebec chose hydroelectricity because we believed in the transition. More than that, we believed that it would pay off to invest in technologies that make Quebec unique, technologies that we can export and that make a name for us around the world, as we have done and continue to do today. In Quebec, we are proud to heat our homes with green, renewable electricity. If anyone would like to talk about the carbon footprint of our hydroelectricity, I would be happy to talk about it for hours.
152 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
- Jun/1/23 5:24:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will depart a bit from my colleague's question, but not to avoid it, because it was excellent. We always come back to international comparisons, to what is done elsewhere and the fact that our competitors have or sometimes do not have taxes. That is indeed important.
Let me come back to biofuels regulations. Many studies in many places have shown that it is a policy that does have a positive, but modest impact on the environment. In the case of Canada, it is important to make comparisons because if this policy is having a modest impact elsewhere, it is because biofuels are replacing traditional oil. The principle is that the dirtier the oil we use the more effective the biofuels standard will be. Given that Canada produces and consumes the dirtiest oil in the world, we may have the potential here of making this standard much more useful than anywhere else.
That is why we need to take the time to compare ourselves sometimes. In this case, our dirty oil may well mean the standard will be better.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 5:09:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today, during a Conservative opposition day, I heard and carefully listened to many unreasonable arguments. I have to say that, like my colleague, I represent an agricultural riding, and even though I do not share his conclusions, there are several interesting elements in his speech.
However, he told us that the carbon tax was a bad thing for our farmers because our international competitors do not have a carbon tax. He gave the example of Europe, which has an emission permits trading system. His argument, therefore, does not really hold water.
Moreover, he is making up a second carbon tax based on the biofuels regulations. In that regard, in addition to the California standard, there is a U.S. federal standard, and both Great Britain and Europe have a standard. Everyone has standards.
Based on his arguments and his logic, I conclude that he approves of the biofuels standard.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 4:22:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in looking at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the cost of the biofuels measure, it is clear that these costs are quite high for households, particularly in provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The provinces with the largest oil and gas industries, and where people rely heavily on oil, are basically paying for this measure.
Is it not time we helped these provinces and their governments develop solutions so that, when there are new standards in the future, costs are lower for households? Is that not the solution? Should they not be developing options for transportation, in particular, which uses oil?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:55:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, the government continues to heavily subsidize fossil fuels with taxpayer money.
For years, we have been waiting for a definition of an effective subsidy for fossil fuels. On two occasions in her reports, the Auditor General told us that she was not even able to evaluate whether subsidies were effective because the government had not even provided a definition.
Can the minister today provide a definition of an effective subsidy for fossil fuels?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:51:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, this budget allocates approximately $80 billion for so-called green subsidies. We do not know whether they are green or not because the government has always refused to define what constitutes an effective fossil fuel subsidy.
Approximately 30% of these subsidies go directly to fossil fuels. That is approximately $24 billion to $25 billion. Is the Minister of Finance not embarrassed to tell unemployed workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada that she is going to take $25 billion to $27 billion out of their pockets when that money is going directly to fossil fuels?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:15:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
Mr. Speaker, I went to the cafeteria on the first floor yesterday to get a grilled cheese, and I was really hoping to see you there. You are very charming and I really appreciate you. In the end, upon reflection, it was just as well that you were not there, because I ran into a Conservative member who spilled a coffee on his pants and found a way to colourfully blame it on the carbon tax.
I thought to myself, yes, that is obviously the source of all evil. I knew today was going to be a Conservative opposition day, so I made a bet with myself that the Conservatives would move a motion to give the bogeyman a new name, the carbon-tax man.
I read the motion last night, and I am pleased to say I was right, because that is essentially what this is. This entirely predictable motion portrays the carbon tax as the source of all evil and its abolition the solution to every problem under the sun. This is not really a motion about buying power or the price of food. It is not really about helping our farmers. This motion is further evidence that the Conservatives are trapped in their ideological cage, an ideology that says abolishing the carbon tax is the only way to fight climate change and make a transition. It is an ideological cage, and they are imprisoned inside it. Public debate is also being held captive, but the premise is false. It is false to say that this is the only solution.
The Conservatives are talking about our farmers. I would like to talk about farmers in the Lower Laurentians. The Union des producteurs agricoles, the UPA, recently held a convention in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I went to the UPA convention and talked to farmers. They thanked the Bloc Québécois for supporting Bill C‑234, which gives them a little GST relief on fuel for their tractors, agricultural equipment, propane and grain drying. They applauded our responsiveness, our pragmatism and our openness. They recognize that and told me so. That is always good to hear.
Instead of proposing a targeted approach, they are engaging in a generalized attack against the infamous carbon tax, which does not apply directly to Quebec, because Quebec has a cap-and-trade system. The basic principle of these systems is to increase the price of inputs or goods that pollute, while at the same time returning the tax-generated revenues to households. The relative price of these goods will be higher because they pollute more, but, in return, people will get help with their purchasing power. In the long run, it means that people will choose inputs and goods that pollute less. However, for these changes to be made, we must be realistic. There also needs to be a vision for the long-term transition. We must give people more options. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are offering that. That is why we are still stuck in our current situation. Bloc Québécois members are realists. We think it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time without getting stuck like the Conservatives.
This is why we supported the part of their motion that deals with agricultural fuels and which is the object of Bill C‑234. That is why we support the elimination of the tax on propane used to dry grain. At the UPA central union in Sainte-Scholastique-Mirabel, they looked me in the eyes and told me that it was important. However, that is the object of Bill C‑234, so the Conservatives do not need to waste time with their motion.
With respect to fertilizer, I would like to commend the extraordinary work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I myself participated in meetings where the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, our agriculture critic, had gathered everyone around the table, including farmers. There were meetings with firms to ensure that fertilizer supply contracts, which had been signed before the war in Ukraine, are not subject to sanctions. These honest farmers had the right to get their fertilizer at a predictable price. We were there for them.
The issue of transportation is important, because that is where we will have cut emissions the most over the next 10, 20 and 30 years, if we exclude electricity generation itself in most provinces. We have adopted a smart, focused and temporary approach that is compatible with the transition and shows compassion for the people who pay. This helps taxi drivers, truckers and those who are temporarily affected by the vagaries of the geopolitical tensions that we are currently experiencing.
I would remind our Conservative colleagues that the price of oil is currently determined by a cartel, by their friends in Saudi Arabia and their friends in Venezuela, who are communists. This is OPEC+, which includes Russia, which, again last week, decided to cut production to keep prices high, to the great delight of Alberta's public finances.
That is why we supported Bill C‑234. If we must point the finger at a party that does not support farmers, it is the Liberal Party. When we voted on Bill C‑234, I was there and the Bloc Québécois was there for farmers from Quebec and the whole country. I was the first of 338 members of the House to say on social media that even the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had voted against farmers. The central unions of the Union des producteurs agricoles noticed that.
The reality is that we must embark on a transition; this was not decided on a whim. The Conservatives have never tabled a motion that would allow us to assess and appreciate how we can embark on a transition that would reflect the ambitions of the west. They are still fixated on the carbon tax.
The International Energy Agency, however, believes that demand in energy will drop by 7% by 2050 because some countries are making a effort, although Canada is not.
The European Union believes that energy demand will drop by 30% to 38% by 2050. Why? It is because some countries are doing their part. Canada is not among them.
France expects its energy demand to drop by 40% by 2050. Why? It is because France is a G7 country that is making an effort. Here in the House, whenever a Conservative motion is put forward, the substantive problems are forgotten in the rush to score partisan points. I have no interest in going down that road. We deserve better in the House.
When faced with the kinds of things I am saying now, the Conservatives attack Quebec. Just last week, Conservatives posted misleading statements on social media, saying that a metric tonne of carbon is cheaper in Quebec, with our cap-and-trade system, than in the rest of the country. The reason is simple: Our system is based on controlling quantity, and prices fluctuate. A metric tonne is cheaper in Quebec because there is less demand. There is less demand for allowances because we pollute less.
This system was the Western Climate Initiative, which originally included Canadian provinces and U.S. states. Some of them dropped out because they wanted to pay less, because they do not want to transition and because they knew it would cost them even more. Today, they refuse to consider possible solutions. That is what put us in the position we are in today.
Let us get back to the issue of inflation. All of this does not mean that no one is facing higher prices for groceries or fuel. The people I meet on a daily basis are experiencing these difficulties. We must address the weaknesses in our supply chain. It is not because of the Bank of Canada that we are having a hard time getting Japanese cars. There is just one Conservative telling us that. It is not the Bank of Canada's fault that lumber is in short supply. Last time I checked, the governor of the central bank was not out cutting down spruce trees in the Saguenay region. I did not hear anything of the kind.
It is not Canada's fault that we have seen record prices for resources such as wheat, rice or commodities. At the Chicago stock exchange, a few weeks ago, no one cared about Alberta's carbon tax. There is just one Conservative saying that and misleading the public.
Over the long term, global warming will cause even more disruption and instability in the supply chain. There is just one Conservative telling us it is a myth. This week, I heard a Conservative say that the holes in the ozone layer were a myth. They are the only ones who think that way.
When the Bloc Québécois moves motions on the prayer in the House or on the monarchy and the fact that we kneel before entering the House to pray to a foreign sovereign who is up to his ears in monarchy, the Conservatives lecture us about priorities.
I would have liked to see the Conservatives move a motion about our dependence on oil and how we can reduce it in a way that is fair to workers. I would have liked to see them present a targeted plan for low-income individuals or targeted support for our farmers. That is what our farmers are asking for, to deal with the structural weaknesses of our supply chains.
I would have liked to see them present a plan for building social housing for those who need it. Trickle-down economics does not work for housing. We must build housing for people who are living on the streets.
I would have liked to see a motion proposing solutions to address the weak links in the supply chain. Quebec's seaports are telling us they need help.
The next time the Conservatives call our priorities into question, I will tell them to buy a mirror, because they are on sale at Rona.
1730 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 11:12:30 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion on the carbon tax, which, according to the Conservatives, is the enemy of humankind.
What is more, we have before us Bill C-234, which will give our farmers some tax relief on farm fuels and the sales tax on propane used for drying grain. We have many farmers in my riding of Mirabel. I would like to know what the government thinks about that. We know that, previously, the government and even the Minister of Agriculture voted against farmers. I am wondering whether they have changed their minds in that regard. This is very important for farmers in Mirabel. They have talked to me about it many times.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
