- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- Jun/4/24 11:35:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague sits on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I know that he is interested in the price of many goods and services in Quebeckers' and Canadians' market basket.
In the last budget, the government proposed an open banking system. That will completely sideline Desjardins, the largest financial institution in Quebec. The federal government wants to impose an open banking system and force Desjardins either to isolate itself or to join the federal system, which would certainly go against the spirit of the Constitution.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about this. Does he not think that, before once again imposing a last-minute policy on the provinces, the government should coordinate with Quebec to ensure that Quebeckers, most of whom bank with Desjardins, can receive the same treatment as all other Canadians?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 5:29:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is wrong when he talks about the national government, because Quebeckers' national government is in Quebec City. This is the federal government. We know that the reason the federal government is interfering in health is because of a loophole in the Constitution called the federal spending power. This is the only federation in the world that has not regulated that in one way or another, because the federal government is predatory and invasive toward the provinces.
The federal government's role is clear. It is to take Quebeckers' money, write a cheque and transfer it to the Government of Quebec and to the provinces so that they can provide care, because the federal government is incapable of providing care. When it does so, particularly for the military, that care is inefficient, ineffective and very costly.
Here is my question for my Conservative colleague. If and when his party takes office, will it commit to respecting the federal government's constitutional role, meeting the demands of all of the provinces and territories and substantially increasing unconditional health transfers to the provinces?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 7:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that adds a bit of spice to our evening, obviously.
As I was saying, we asked for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. That should have been granted, in the interests of patients, those who are ill and workers. However, it was denied by the Speaker on the pretext that it requires royal recommendation, when the only thing Quebec wants is to have its share of the funds that are already allocated within this bill.
This shows just how institutionalized and deep-seated Ottawa's desire is to crush Quebec, to crush Quebec's desire to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and to exercise authority within its own areas of jurisdiction based on its preferences, particularly when it comes to pharmacare. It is in the genes of Ottawa's politicians, in their DNA. What is happening here today is so unfortunate.
It is unfortunate because the interests of patients and Quebeckers are coming second. We should be greatly saddened to see that people's health is being politicized for electoral purposes. That should never be commended.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 11:41:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their presence. If I may, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.
Earlier, in his speech, the leader of the official opposition quoted René Lévesque, who said, “Beware of those who say they love the people but hate everything the people love”. Obviously, it is hard not to seize on this expression. It is hard not to reflect on it. Indeed, people like the truth. People like facts. People like political leaders who have had a real job. We are talking about people, like the member for Jonquière, who did not arrive here at 22 years of age. The member for Jonquière had real jobs. Quebeckers like people who do not insult their intelligence, who appeal to their intelligence.
Quebeckers and the people do not like those who hide from debates, people like the leader of the official opposition who refuse to debate. Quebeckers and the people do not like people who want to shut down local media and defund the CBC in the regions. People do not like that. People do not like official opposition leaders who, for years, hid the fact that they spoke French in order to be more popular in their agricultural riding in Ontario. Quebeckers and the people do not like that. People do not like it either when politicians move stupid motions. That brings us to the agenda. Obviously, the adjective applies to the motion.
I think this is the 42nd speech I have heard about the carbon tax. I am at the point where I start the clock and wait 10 minutes. That is what I usually do when the Conservatives are talking. This time, the Conservatives are trying to reinvent the wheel, talking about a break over the summer. When one likes what the people like, summer vacation is more important than Christmas vacation or Easter vacation. That is what love for the people looks like to the Conservatives.
They are reinventing the wheel and, every time they do, it gets more and more square. We have another example right here. They found another way of undermining the tax on pollution, which all of our economic partners have. It is once again a way of trying to convince people that fighting climate change is not in their best interest. Above all, it is a populist, ineffective approach that goes against the most basic Conservative values. They actually think people will believe that the Conservative Party cares about the purchasing power of middle-class and poor Canadians.
First of all, there has been inflation in Canada over the last two and a half years, just as there has been in the other G7 and G20 countries. A number of ad hoc measures were taken to support those most affected by inflation and the increase in the cost of living. The Conservatives voted against them consistently. All of a sudden, they feel the need to help people go camping. That is exactly what is happening.
For example, we wanted to help taxi and truck drivers facing higher fuel prices after they had already signed contracts and made commitments. These are people who burn fuel. We can agree that it is in the Conservatives' DNA to want to help them, but they opposed that measure. We wanted to increase the GST credit. The GST credit is a cheque sent to the least fortunate Canadians so that they can buy groceries. The Conservatives said that the measure was inflationist, and they blew off the poorest people in Canada.
All of a sudden, we should be helping Conservatives by removing a tax, which would be extremely expensive. I will come back to that later. All of a sudden, the Conservatives are concerned about people. The member for Shefford is working hard to increase OAS and abolish the two classes of seniors. Supposedly, the Conservatives are against anything that costs a penny, but, when it comes time to put forward a stupid motion, they are concerned about what the people like. It is a real dog and pony show.
The people care about health transfers. The people care about wait times. The people in the regions care about access to a family doctor. For them to get these things, we need unconditional transfers. All the Conservatives will say is that they will cut funding, so, yes, we need to beware of those who say they love the people and then spit on them. We especially need to beware of those who say they love Quebec and then spit on it.
Now, I want to talk about student grants. We believe in research and science. Under the Harper government, we had a science and technology minister who was a creationist. We hope for better days ahead. For 20 years now, students have been leaving Canada because there is not enough funding for research. Not only did the Conservatives refuse to help these young people get through the period of their careers when they are most affected by the cost of living, but they also submitted a dissenting opinion against the proposal by our colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on this subject. All of a sudden, these people have the nerve to quote René Lévesque. That is what I call the art of failing to grasp what they are reading.
Now they are saying that, if they form government, they will save a penny for every penny spent. Yesterday, during question period, the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister that every penny spent was an inflationary expense. Lifting this tax would be an expenditure of hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, but that does not bother them. What they propose is equivalent to writing people cheques. It is a tax expenditure. It is just less obvious. Suddenly, tax expenditures are okay. This party runs on slogans. What is its slogan? Is it, “Axe the homes”? I cannot recall.
A member is answering. I am pleased to see at least one Conservative member is listening to me. I take that as a compliment.
Suddenly, these expenditures are no longer inflationary.
Then there is the issue of red tape. They want to cut the red tape, omitting that housing transfers must go to Quebec. The federal government cannot deal directly with municipalities. There is the Conservative leader's housing bonus and penalty program, supported by his Quebec cronies, who understand almost nothing of how this works in the province, even though some of them have sat as MNAs or been chiefs of staff in Quebec. They have no consideration for people.
The GST cannot be lifted willy-nilly. It must be understood that it is part of a value-added tax system. A business that sells a product collects the GST and remits it to the government. When a business buys goods and services that it uses to create others, it requests a GST tax credit. It is a chain. It is an effective tax in that creates little distortion, less distortion and economic damage than other taxes, but it is a tax that is levied in developed countries and is burdensome to administer.
It is a chain, a process. The Conservatives want to lift this tax for four months. That means that every accountant of every small business in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, will get a holiday. I am not sure whose camping trip they want to pay for, but it will certainly not be our small business owners, whose lives will suddenly get a lot more complicated. Sending cheques would be easier. However, for purely ideological reasons, they do not want to do this. They do not want any programs, and they do not want to help people. All they can say, again and again, is, “Axe the tax”.
Why is this? It is because they have absolutely no substance. They are showing us today that they do not even have a basic grasp of how the business tax system works.
He may be full of ambition, but let me conclude by saying this: The leader of the official opposition does not give a fig about people's vacations. That is the least of his worries. He does not care one whit whether people can go camping. He does not care one whit about getting rid of the tax. What he wants is a summer tax break so that he can have the pleasure of becoming a hatemonger again in the fall when the tax is reinstated. That is what he wants to do. It is pure electioneering. What he wants to do is say that we are going to enjoy a break from paying taxes and, when we come back in September, when the tax is reinstated—at his request—he is going to rise and harass people all fall because the tax was reinstated. Another false scandal will be created with this, but his proposal will have added management costs to every business in Canada.
It is irresponsible, because the main thing the official opposition leader is doing is fostering detestation, hate and the loss of confidence in the institutions that we vow to leave because we are separatists, but that we respect because we are democrats. I think that these people, their sloppiness aside, should be deeply ashamed of themselves today.
1587 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:52:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a large majority of Quebeckers think it is important for governments to respect their areas of jurisdiction. That is the case in my riding. People come to see me. They are deeply insulted because not only is the federal government meddling in Quebec's affairs, but it is making a mess. People have to get out their credit card, go to the CRA portal and wait, without necessarily knowing how much they are going to get back. That was the case for a long time.
The Liberals fuel this perverse argument that if we want Quebec to set up programs that reflect Quebeckers, it means we are working against our people, against the health of our people, against the well-being of our people. The fact the the member for Winnipeg North is even asking this question discredits his intellect.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:41:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what do we have to do to live to 120?
We mind our own business. Generally, that is a good technique for being well liked, for getting people's respect and for not getting into trouble. It is rather surprising to see that Canada has been around for 157 years while systematically not minding its business. That is a record.
Essentially, if we put it in good French for Quebeckers to understand, today's motion calls on the government to mind its own damn business. We have to use the same crass, sloppy tone as the Prime Minister in drafting the motion.
The motion calls on the House to remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that people do not care which level of government is responsible for what. It is his father's Constitution. It is a family quarrel. It is sad that it has come to this, because while we are constantly fighting over jurisdictions—and let us face it, Quebec is right, because the Constitution is very clear—there are people who are suffering, who do not have health care and who do not have housing. While these people are suffering, we are bickering over dental insurance, health transfers and the conditions that will or will not be attached. There are human consequences to this.
With this motion, we are conveying a message from all governments in Quebec, going back as long as there has been a social policy in Quebec. I would actually like to quote some premiers who were by no means separatists. The member for Winnipeg North talked a lot about our separatist attitudes, but it is not merely an attitude. It is at the core of who we are.
I have a quote from a premier who said, “the provinces are then put in a position where no longer as legislators they decide as a matter of provincial policy that this is the type of social service their people require or desire, but rather their status is reduced to the mere right to decide whether or not they will participate in a programme that already has been decided at the federal level and which is now offered to them on a cost-sharing basis....in our opinion, shared cost programmes force a measure of uniformity that is beyond the dictates of desirability.”
That was said by Ernest Manning, who served as the premier of Alberta from 1943 to 1968.
In 1982, René Lévesque said that, in order to ensure the development of our society, the amending formula for the Canadian Constitution should recognize a general veto power or the right to opt out with full financial compensation in every other case.
This continued with the Johnson government and the Charest government. In fact, all governments have asked for balanced federal spending power and the right to opt out with full financial compensation. This includes governments under which several of the current members served, including the member for Bourassa, now a Liberal MP in the federal government. He sat behind Jean Charest and made this demand, as did the now-famous member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who served under Jean Charest. Several others, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who was part of Action démocratique du Québec and was also in the “yes” camp in 1995, have also made this demand. At one time or another, Quebec members were in favour of this.
I am delighted to see that the Conservatives are going to support our motion. They took a few nights to think it over, after voting against our amendment to the amendment to the budget, which called for exactly the same thing as this motion. Sometimes consistency must be learned.
Spending power has become a disease in Ottawa. We are talking about fiscal imbalance. At the time of Confederation, the federal government's responsibilities were very limited. There was no social policy and no welfare state. What evolved into today's welfare state, and what became social policy, health, education and assistance for the less fortunate, are things that the federal government handed over to the provinces because it was not interested. Religious orders took care of that. Since Protestants lived in Upper Canada, in Ontario, and Catholics lived in Quebec, the government decided to leave religious matters to the provinces.
Over time, these responsibilities have become critical components of the modern state in terms of quality of life, longevity, productivity, social and industrial policy, and more.
Unfortunately, the Constitution did not set out that the revenues that would become the most significant for a government would be shared equally between Quebec and Ottawa, which means that today, the provinces are drowning in responsibilities while the money is in Ottawa. This was never the intention. Normally, if the spirit of the Constitution had been respected, the government would have thought that if it was going to take tax points, tax bases, the ability to tax, then it should send it to the provinces so that they can be autonomous and the spirit of the Constitution would thus be respected.
However, because of a flaw in the Constitution, something called spending power has developed, the spending power under which Ottawa assumes the right to withhold money, attach conditions and literally put a gun to the provinces' heads, telling them that they will not get the money if they do not do what the federal government wants, even though Ottawa has absolutely no right to legislate in areas such as health, education, higher education, scholarships and so on. This is a serious problem.
This is a major problem first of all for transparency, because when Ottawa decides to cut transfers and funds, the public essentially experiences service cuts. From a democratic standpoint, people do not always know who to blame. In the 1990s, Quebec had to reverse course on ambulatory care and home care after Ottawa made budget cuts. People thought the Quebec government was responsible. Jean Chrétien admitted that balancing the budget was easy for him because he could simply make cuts and no one would be the wiser.
This is a democratic problem. This is a policy consistency problem, because each province has its own preferences. Guess what? That is a good thing. Each of them learns from the others. Ottawa boasts about borrowing Quebec's model and applying it to everyone else. So kind of Quebec, they say. When that happens, how does innovation move forward in other areas? How are the provinces supposed to innovate and get ideas from one another in upcoming areas of innovation? It is impossible.
We are also vulnerable to cuts. That is a message to the Conservatives because there is a big chance they will be in power soon. They are as excited as kids on Christmas. They know it is coming. They tell us that they respect provincial jurisdictions. The Harper government did this. They respected provincial jurisdictions.
Essentially what they are saying is that they are going to respect provincial jurisdictions so much that they will not pay the provinces another penny, that they will make cuts to the transfers, that they will not index them. Then, since the Liberals generated a massive debt by sticking their noses in the provinces' business, they are going to pay down the debt and the provinces will have to do what they can on health. The Conservatives need to understand that if they are in power some day, they will have to live with the problems caused by the Liberals and they will have to index the health transfers. This just shows that Quebec is vulnerable to a change in government in Ottawa.
It is also a denial of democracy. This spending power has become a disease that is more serious than we suspect. I sat on the Standing Committee on Health for several months. We have reached a point where, when we say that Quebec's jurisdictions must be respected, we are told that it is no big deal, that spending power lets us do whatever we want. I heard my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River and my NDP colleagues say so.
Physicians' federations are coming to Ottawa one after the other to ask for money, knowing that spending power will trample over the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. For example, and this applies to a lot of other areas too, each federation asks for its own small program with its own small fund without realizing that, ultimately, the problem is systemic. The problem is that transfers need to be paid to Quebec with no strings attached in order for all needs to be met.
The spending power, the fiscal imbalance, makes Quebec vulnerable, makes our constituents vulnerable. More than that, it absolutely undermines Quebec's decision-making capacity. It forces Quebec to negotiate because the money is in Ottawa and then Ottawa will brag about it. Earlier my Liberal colleague spent 10 minutes telling us what she had negotiated with Quebec. It should not have been up for negotiation. The money should have gone directly to Quebec City.
Forcing a partner to negotiate is not a negotiation. It is what we call holding Quebec hostage. If the other provinces want that to happen, that is their business, but when the federal government creates a new program in the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, it is only natural that there be a bit of respect for Quebec, for the position of all its governments in history and that it be offered the right to opt out with full financial compensation.
1636 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 2:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 2024 is a defining moment in the history of the community of Saint-Benoît, now part of the city of Mirabel. Founded in 1799, this village is celebrating its 225th anniversary this year.
From the rise of the Patriotes' movement of 1837 to 1838—which was a battle for our freedom and democracy and saw the entire village burned by General Colborne's soldiers—to the expropriation of land by the federal government for the Mirabel airport, the people of Saint-Benoît have experienced many moments of adversity in their history.
Despite these major trials and tribulations, the village has been revitalized thanks to the industrialization of agriculture, the diversification of agri-tourism and the ingenuity of numerous entrepreneurs over the last few decades.
Surely members can see why I have such admiration for the people of my riding. The people of Saint-Benoît have a sense of honour, solidarity and innovation running through their veins.
On behalf of the citizens in the riding of Mirabel and on behalf of Quebeckers, I would like to wish the people of Saint-Benoît a happy 225th anniversary.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:18:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will tell them what I told a woman from my riding recently. When the details of the program were not yet available, she realized that she would have to pay with her credit card and then go onto the CRA portal to apply for a refund. Then, after having to wait for the refund, she would only be reimbursed for half the amount. Children are covered in Quebec. There is already a system in place and dentists are participating in it.
The government could have reimbursed people automatically so that they would not have to pay for their dental care out of their own pocket. People often have to use their credit card at an interest rate of 20%. That is what doing a good job means in a federal context. That is what Quebeckers are telling us. That is what they are experiencing. They are paying 20% interest to provide advances to the federal government for these services because it is the CRA that has to issue the refund.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:17:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Member for Lévis—Lotbinière talks about a double standard, and yet he always votes against Quebec and for Alberta. He votes against the right to opt out with full financial compensation for Quebec, but he has no problem giving oil companies $55 billion or $60 billion in financial incentives. This is paid for with Quebeckers' money meant for day care, health, education, social programs, housing and refugees but it ends up in the pockets of oil companies. Is that not a double standard?
In the Bloc Québécois, for as long as I can remember, we have not supported any of Ottawa's budgetary policies because we always set conditions. As far as we are concerned, common sense is set out in black and white. Our conditions are clear and reasonable. That is why Quebeckers vote for us.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:15:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the immigration minister is in the bad habit of saying during question period that we take the federal government for an ATM. That may be because it is our money, drawn on our account, that is in this ATM. Quebeckers' national government is in Quebec City. I have no interest in what Manitobans think about this. If they want centralized programs, fine. Quebec, for its part, is asking for the right to opt out.
There is nothing progressive about being bad. There is nothing progressive about setting up a dental care system that already exists in Quebec, while the infrastructure already exists in Quebec. There is nothing progressive about not recognizing that drug insurance is provincial and that everyone in Quebec is already covered in some fashion or another. There is nothing progressive about not recognizing that unilateral measures cannot be put in place. There is nothing progressive about doubling and tripling red tape for housing programs or to build affordable housing units. This just adds delays. There is nothing progressive about that.
What is progressive is to listen to Quebec and let it act in its own areas of jurisdiction.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this budget is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois because it is unacceptable to Quebeckers. Let us keep the suspense for the movies: We are voting against the budget.
This is a budget that, in many ways, feeds on human misery. It is a budget of fiscal imbalance. This budget is the soul of the federal spending power, through which the federal government assumes the right to impose conditions on Quebec in its own areas of jurisdiction. These are areas in which the federal government does not have the right to legislate, such as housing and health care, among others. It is unacceptable.
Quebec has denounced the Liberal government, along with its NDP allies. Last week, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion. Not a single Quebec MNA refused to vote in favour of this motion, which called for the right to withdraw with full financial compensation for Quebec in the event of interference into its jurisdictions, as is the case with this budget. These are what we call Quebec's traditional demands.
Every Quebec government dating back to well before I was born made this demand, in particular the Jean Charest-led government, which included the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Had she been in Quebec, she probably would have voted in favour of this motion, rather than voting against last week’s proposal by the Bloc Québécois to give Quebec that right of withdrawal.
Last week during question period, a minister, whose name and title I shall not mention since this was partially private, yelled from one side of the House to the other to ask me what was a unanimous consent motion by the National Assembly worth. According to this individual, there is one every month, since the National Assembly is always unanimously criticizing the federal government.
This helps us understand just how wide the gap is between Canada and Quebec from a budgetary standpoint. Rather than turning to Quebec and showing the province a modicum of understanding and respect, Ottawa says Quebec is wrong to ask for respect in its own areas of jurisdiction. There we have it, the Liberal ministers showing the depths of their contempt. Above all, they are showing their total inability to admit that they are wrong and that they should not interfere in areas outside their jurisdiction they are incompetent to manage. No jurisdiction and no competence makes for an incompetent federal government.
This is an omnibus bill. Right off the bat I expect that the member for Winnipeg-North, an outstanding debater, will likely rise shortly, although my saying so now might dissuade him. He is going to tell me there is something or other that is good in the budget, that there are not just bad things in the budget, that some of what it contains is acceptable. Fine, except that this is an omnibus bill, a bill that has everything and anything and that amends numerous acts and regulations.
In such instances, our values must guide us and we must draw a red line. We in the Bloc Québécois have been transparent. We signalled this red line to the government before it tabled the budget. We told the Liberals that if they wanted, then maybe they could possibly consider seeking the Bloc’s support. One never knows, the NDP might leave their side.
In exchange for this support, we wanted the right to opt out of programs under Quebec's jurisdiction with full financial compensation. Is that included in the bill? Not only is it not included, but the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the amendment to the amendment that we moved to add it to the budget. They voted against Quebec's National Assembly and against all the Quebec governments that have made this request since the 1950s. What the NDP and Liberals are telling us is that they do not think the Quebec government is doing a good enough job in its own areas of jurisdiction and that they do not trust it. However, some of the problems that Quebec is having with health care, education and housing are due to the fact that it does not have full freedom to act, because the federal government is standing in the way.
We asked for old age security to be increased starting at age 65, but that is not in the budget. We asked for an end to the fossil fuel subsidies, but there are fresh subsidies in this budget, and the government is promising a plan. The Minister of Environment said that the government had abolished inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, when we asked him what “inefficient” meant, he could not even define it. The reality is that the tax incentives took on a differnt form.
The federal government owes Quebec $900 million. As François Pérusse put it, “a debt is a debt” and must be repaid. The federal government owes Quebec $900 million because we had to give asylum seekers integration classes, French classes, health services and so on. Quebec incurred these expenses and paid for them with Quebeckers' money. This budget is a slap in the face for Quebec.
Instead of granting unconditional housing transfers, the federal government decided to impose even more conditions. Quebec has had permanent housing construction programs for decades. Now, at a time when people are living on the streets, sleeping in tents or in their cars, the government got the brilliant idea to add even more red tape. The Liberals seem to think this is the best Liberal idea this year.
The consequences are serious, tragic and inhumane. For ideological reasons, this government is determined to crush Quebec and its desire to take action in its own areas of jurisdiction. The other provinces can do what they want, but this urge to crush Quebec is having tragic and inhumane consequences. The same is true when it comes to health.
This may not be the worst part, but what makes this bill even more unacceptable is the part about open banking. Banks have changed. The big banks have basically become financial product factories, selling loans, insurance and other financial products. Consumers often use third-party apps to deal with banks. The banks manufacture the financial products, and the apps handle the customer service for those products. This needs to be regulated. These transactions involve personal and private information.
The government had three choices. First, it could have opted for the Interac model, where the industry regulates itself. For instance, take Desjardins in Quebec, provincially regulated financial institutions, and credit unions in the rest of Canada. They coordinate with the banks so that the information that is shared is regulated, customers receive their product and their information is protected. This involves some self-regulation. We are not huge fans of this model, but it could have worked. However, the government said it was not interested.
Then there was the second approach, which is more collaborative and involves securities commissions. This is where Ottawa sits down with Quebec, in particular. Not only is Desjardins the biggest employer in Quebec, but it is also its biggest financial institution. The idea would be to harmonize our laws and regulate the exchange of information to protect consumers, while ensuring that they receive quality service and that new banking services meet their needs. Ottawa, which says it is still working with Quebec, has closed the door on that option.
The government has therefore decided to introduce legislation that will lead to a plan next fall, under which federal financial institutions will be included in the legislative framework. Desjardins and other Quebec co-operatives are literally being told that they have the choice of ignoring Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, ignoring Quebec's Bill 25 on privacy protection and that, if they want, they can come into the federal fold. They will fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction, which contradicts the most basic spirit of co-operation.
That is exactly how the federal government behaved. It not only stomped all over Quebec's jurisdictions, it held a knife to Quebec's throat. It behaved a bit like that when it imposed a securities commission that was supposedly national, but in reality centred on Toronto, before the Supreme Court ruled against it. The government is not open to talking with Quebec.
The Liberals can go ahead and list all the good things they want about Bill C‑69. They can try to convince us that Ottawa knows better than Quebec when it comes to managing hospitals, operating child care and fixing teeth, but that will not not change the fact that this is a bad budget. It goes against Quebec and Quebec's interests as framed by every Quebec government throughout history.
Once again, I am announcing that not only will the Bloc Québécois vote against, but I will be pleased to rise and vote no.
1515 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Canada exported so much oil and gas that the value of the Canadian dollar rose. Canada's manufacturing heartland in Quebec and Ontario was decimated as a result. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost. This has been documented by leading economists here at the University of Ottawa and elsewhere. When Canada exports too much oil, it kills the manufacturing industry in Quebec and Ontario. This is called Dutch disease, and it is taught in economics 101.
My colleague expressed nostalgia for the days when oil exports killed manufacturing jobs in Quebec. Would he like to say that again so Quebeckers can hear him?
I am not sure I understood correctly.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:10:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I find my colleague's speech manipulative and Manichaean. He is rising here to say that if we are against the oil industry in Alberta, we are against Alberta, and if we are against the oil industry in Atlantic Canada, we are against Atlantic Canada.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the transition. We support the transition in the east, in the west. We agree with the fact that Quebeckers have decided not to go ahead with deepwater drilling. This bill will allow Atlantic Canada to double its oil production within six years.
What did the Liberals do? First, they removed the word “oiler” from the title and added the word “transition”, even though this is an oil-producing bill. Then what did they do? They voted against all the amendments proposed in good faith by the Bloc Québécois to include transition elements in the bill. They voted against every single one of them.
How can they then rise in the House and tell us that we are acting in bad faith and that we are against the Atlantic provinces? They torpedoed every opportunity they had to work with the opposition parties.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 1:35:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, we had to help all sectors, however imperfectly, to prevent them from collapsing. Where were the Conservatives when these expenditures were incurred? They were sitting around the table with Minister Morneau, spending tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. If I were the hon. member, when he talks about the nine years of the current government, I would be a bit embarrassed.
He is right about one thing, though, and that is that the federal government will be looking for additional revenue. For me, it is not so much the debt servicing that bothers me, although that is problematic, it is the fact that they are using these revenues to violate Quebec's jurisdictions, to violate the Constitution, to trample on Quebec and interfere in just about everything and nothing, rather than transferring the money to Quebec and letting Quebeckers be responsible for their own programs. That is what the members of the official opposition should be outraged about.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 1:22:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I wish to share my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères to speak on this budget.
It is a budget that is a little difficult to characterize and a little difficult to describe. I was going to say that it demonstrates once and for all that there is a deep abyss between Quebec's expectations, Quebec's needs and respect for Quebec's jurisdictions, which Quebeckers hold dear, and the expectations of the other nine provinces and three territories as to what the federal government should do, but the federal government gives us plenty of opportunities to demonstrate this over and over again. One example of this deep, historical cultural abyss between what we Quebeckers expect and what the rest of the country expects in terms of federal action is the media's treatment of the budget. When we look at how this budget has been treated in English Canada, we see that analysts have focused mainly on the issue of the capital gains tax inclusion rate.
As everyone knows, some people realize huge capital gains. One example is someone who buys a property, sells it several years later and makes more than $500,000 in profit. Yes, some people do make a lot of money in certain cases. Anyone who makes over $500,000 in profit has been told that they will have to contribute a little more. Obviously, this is one way for the government to bring in a good chunk of revenue. This cash grab will help the government keep its promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio, although artificially. Analysts in English Canada are talking about this and wondering whether this a good tax or a bad tax. What effect will it have on investment? Is it fair? Did the Liberal government do the right thing? Analysts in all the major media outlets have been talking about this.
As an economist, I too asked myself that question. I read the English-language media and I fell into the trap. As members, we are discussing whether it is a bad tax or a good measure. However, at some point, our intellect as Quebeckers will lead us in another direction. Regardless of the new sources of revenue the federal government has found, we will start wondering what it is going to do with the money. We will realize that the billions of dollars that the federal government is raking in with a tax measure that may indeed be effective are being used not to balance the budget after the extremely expensive pandemic measures or to restore fairness between generations, but purely to trample on Quebec's rights, to interfere in Quebec's affairs and to meddle not only in areas that are none of the federal government's business, but in jurisdictions in which it is notoriously incompetent, such as health care, dental care and housing.
It is not all that hard for a Quebecker to prepare a speech about the budget because it contains wall-to-wall interference. Let me give what I would call a historic example: In the budget, the federal government has decided to inferfere in Hydro-Québec's rate setting. When it comes to housing, we are basically used to it, because it happened gradually. We know about the punishing impact of the health conditions on patients. We know about the consequences of the agreement with the NDP. Now, however, the federal government is placing conditions on Hydro-Québec. How did that happen?
It happened because, in the past, when the federal government was giving out subsidies for energy and for clean energy, it excluded Quebec. It said Quebec was being shut out because Quebec had a Crown corporation that supplied almost 100% of its electricity. It said Quebec would not receive one red cent. Now that there are lots of Bloc Québécois members here, the Liberals know that Quebeckers are going to speak in the House. The Conservatives, the Liberal backbenchers and the lone NDP member from Quebec are not going to do it. The federal government said, in last year's budget, that the Quebec government or Hydro-Québec would be able to apply for subsidies for green energy. It was the first time that had happened, so we were surprised. However, the conditions were not met, so not a penny was paid out.
What do we see in this budget? We see conditions. In exchange for subsidies to help Hydro-Québec with its wind and solar projects, the federal government is demanding that it adjust its rate schedule so that 100% of the subsidy is passed on to the consumer.
That is impossible. When I buy electricity, when I receive my bill from Hydro-Québec, I do not know whether it comes from La Romaine or a wind farm in the Gaspé. We do not know where it comes from. It is impossible to enforce, which means that Quebec will very likely once again be excluded from the program.
I see the parliamentary secretary looking at me with one eye wider than the other, as usual, thinking that that was not the intention and that he and his colleagues do not want to hurt Quebec. However, it is once again symptomatic of the fact that they do not understand, because they are not good at this. They are not competent when it comes to energy. Why, then, did they design the subsidy the way they did? They figured they were going to ask polluting provinces to implement green projects. There are a lot of private companies involved, but the government wants to make sure that they do not pocket the money. Consequently, they tell them to develop projects, but to make sure that the green energy is less expensive in order to encourage people to switch over. That is essentially the plan. Then, since the government wants to apply uniform measures and does not recognize that Quebec is different, we have a program that is no good for Quebec and that is literally a violation of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
However, that is nothing. What the government calls clean in the rest of Canada is nuclear energy. It believes nuclear energy is clean. The small nuclear reactors that refine oil sands using less oil sand so that they can export more oil sand, that is green. That is what they want to subsidize and facilitate. They will make sure that consumers pay less. This government believes that natural gas is green. Subsidies will go directly to natural gas, as long as there is a carbon capture strategy and technologies that do not exist, except in the Liberals' minds. Here are more measures that are bad for Quebec, and they keep coming.
There is still no health transfer agreement with Quebec. The federal government used to manage a hospital in Quebec. It was a military hospital on Montreal's West Island. When management was transferred to the Quebec government, we heard through the grapevine that managing a hospital cost the federal government three times more than it did the Quebec government, yet the federal government has the gall to come tell us how to manage our health care system. Why? Because they want to be seen doing something and they want a maple leaf on the corner of the cheque. It is the same story with prescription drug insurance, since 100% of Quebeckers already have prescription drug insurance. We already have a plethora of programs in Quebec. The money should be given to Quebec. The same applies to dental care, since all Quebec dentists who treat children are registered in Quebec's automated system. If it wanted to implement these programs quickly without making people pay directly, the federal government would have given Quebec the money so that it could do what it is good at. However, that will not happen, because the federal government always wants to be seen to be doing something.
It is the same for housing. The federal government may well have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Every time this government has gotten involved in housing, there have been fewer units. When it came up with its national housing strategy, it ignored the fact that Quebec was the only province that had had permanent social and co-op housing construction programs, among others, for years. The terms and conditions of those programs were familiar to everyone in the field. What did our excellent programs get us when the federal government failed to recognize them? They got us three and half—almost four—years of negotiations, lost years during which people were sleeping in their cars, people in the regions where the housing crisis is spreading. The Liberals keep telling us that the federal government should get involved and impose all kinds of conditions. In my riding, there is a collective dwelling program that has been on pause for eight years because of these complex conditions.
What is the Bloc Québécois asking for? We are asking for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. I will close with that. We are asking that Quebec get its money in areas under its own jurisdiction.
Any member who works for Quebec should agree with that. We have been good sports. Yesterday, we asked for it by means of an amendment to an amendment, but the entire Quebec Conservative caucus said no to Quebec. They turned their backs on Quebec. That is what the members of that caucus are willing to do to one day get a ministerial position. They are willing to grovel. The same goes for the NDP and the Liberals. There is only one party that will consistently defend Quebec's interests and jurisdictions, and that is the Bloc Québécois. People will remember that on election day.
1682 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
- Mar/21/24 11:36:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of listening to the Conservatives say that they are for the free market and capitalism. When it comes time to help our media, suddenly we have to allow market forces to decide and let our media disappear. When it comes time to promote our culture and help us defend our artists, then we have to allow the free U.S. market decide and let our artists disappear. However, when it comes time to take billions and tens of billions of dollars of Quebeckers' money to pay for a pipeline, suddenly we need government intervention.
As we have heard here, there are Conservatives who, in Mulroney's day, participated in privatizing crown corporations within the Mulroney government. They are seated today and have never publicly come out against the fact that we give tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money toward pipelines. That is Conservative inconsistency.
If anyone wants me to start with the inconsistencies of the member for Lethbridge, or other members of that caucus, I am game. We could have a take-note debate about it one of these nights.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:35:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservatives are exploiting people's distress in the face of a situation that has been difficult, inflation and a tough economic situation. I also think that the Conservatives from Quebec are kowtowing to their leader to get ministerial positions, and that involves compromising their values and principles.
Now, Quebeckers are benefiting from the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. Since Quebec has clean energy, we have fewer corporate polluters. We therefore have fewer requests for such allowances, which means that we are able to meet the targets that we set at a lower cost.
That is why the impact of the cap-and-trade system on Quebeckers' pockets is much smaller than what we would see in the western provinces, where there is a lot of pollution. Quebeckers decided to use their environmental sovereignty to set up an effective, functional program that benefits Quebec consumers, and we intend to keep that system.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:28:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for the Conservatives, everything is in everything. When it comes time to mislead Quebeckers and lie to them, everything is in everything. Is it the federal government's fault if the price of carbon went up in New Zealand and Switzerland?
That is what the Conservatives are trying to make Quebecers believe. Why? Because, according to the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, everything is in everything. One of Voltaire's characters, who is a favourite of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot with whom I will be sharing my time, Pangloss, was always trying to come up with causal connections. The Conservatives are making connections indiscriminately.
For these Conservative members from Quebec, everything is in everything. It is because of ice cream sales that more people drown in the summer. It is because Scarlett Johansson is in so many movies that the planet is heating up. It is because of the Internet that there are no more fish in the St. Lawrence estuary. That is their logic. The carbon tax and the price of carbon in Quebec went up at the same rate as Internet rates. Is there a connection? No, absolutely not. The Conservatives' attitude just shows that they will do anything for oil and that they will do anything to abandon Quebec and not do anything about Quebec's economy. That is why we want an independent Quebec.
Since 2017, the federal government has injected $1.75 billion into major industrial clusters to develop Canada's and Quebec's economy. Montreal got the artificial intelligence cluster. The federal government invested $1.75 billion across Canada, one-fifth of that going to Quebec, but is giving the oil companies $83 billion in aid over the next 10 years. We are giving up 237 potential Canadian Silicon Valleys to invest in oil. That is 237 industrial clusters.
At the same time, there is no national forestry policy for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and eastern and northern Quebec, and no aerospace policy for Mirabel, Longueuil and Dorval. We are still waiting for that. There is no policy on generic or patented drugs. We lost all that to Manitoba, because western Canada had to have its share of the clusters. There is no industrial cluster for automation in Drummondville, despite the fact that Quebec is a world leader. They are taking $83 billion of Quebec taxpayer money, one-fifth of which is paid by people who get a paycheque every two weeks from Quebec. We are paying for the oil. Do members know what they tell us then? They tell us that Quebeckers are getting equalization payments.
The reality today is that the Conservatives, by misleading Parliament, are telling us that they want to trigger an election about an issue that has nothing to do with Quebec. Parliament, being sovereign, will make its own decision. The day an election is called and we stand before our constituents, Bloc Québécois members will be proud to have been the adults in the House. We will be proud to be in the party that, every day we sat here, even if it was not easy, even if we were faced with disinformation, even if, on the ground, we were faced with the Conservatives’ institutionalized lying, had the courage to stand up to the Conservative Party and the other parties and to stick to the issues that will ensure Quebeckers a prosperous future. We will always be proud of that.
591 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 11:22:20 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if I would go as far as to say that it is a pleasure to talk about the carbon tax.
First, I would like to thank the Conservatives for having given us a break. Yesterday, we did not talk about the carbon tax. We talked about other things. Still, we had a day's respite. Since they had a day to talk about something else, we can see that they are beginning to diversify their intellectual assets and issues to debate. I would like to thank them.
Obviously, today we are debating a motion that is unacceptable, because it is dishonest and misleads the House. I am even surprised that this motion complies with the rules of the House. Not only does it suggest that the carbon tax will apply in Quebec, which is not the case, but it tells us that the increase will take place on April 1, whereas it is spread out over a number of years. The motion is simply dishonest and, above all, it is a motion that rejects Quebec. I will call on my past experience as an educator and do some teaching. I will ask the Conservatives to repeat the following after me. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Even when I say it slowly, they do not understand. We could not go any slower than that, but they still do not understand.
We voted many times to say that we had lost confidence in the government. We did so every time it was in Quebec’s interest. Since 2015, we have not voted in favour of any budget bill. We voted against the emergency measures when we thought they were contrary to Quebec’s interests. If the Conservatives wanted to move non-confidence, they could have found a whole host of unacceptable things that Quebeckers do not like. There is nothing in the motion about the absence of $6 billion in health transfers. There is nothing to protect Quebec when it comes to immigration powers. A government could be brought down over these issues.
There is nothing about returning Quebec's share of the federal cultural budgets. They want to shrink government, but they do not want to transfer power to Quebec. When it comes to infrastructure, municipalities could be allowed to make their own decisions without having to follow federal orders. The Conservatives have no interest at all in that. We could allow Quebec to implement its own environmental laws. The Conservatives want to shrink the federal government, but they want to maintain control. Someone needs to explain to me what kind of economic conservatism that is. What about Quebec’s right to withdraw from federal programs with full compensation? They want more government, but they are Conservative. There is the lifting of conditions on housing. There are tons of things the Conservatives could have put in their motion to satisfy Quebec, so that we could vote to show our lack of confidence in the government, but they decided to reject Quebec.
I have said this many times, but nothing has changed. The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the carbon tax applies to Quebec. It does not apply directly to Quebec. We have our own cap and trade system. It does not apply indirectly by regulation, because our clean fuel regulations are more restrictive. I explained it again to a Conservative from western Canada yesterday in the lobby. His eyes almost popped out of his head. He did not even know that. The carbon tax does not apply indirectly to Quebec because, according to the calculations of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Bank of Canada, the impact of the federal carbon tax on the price of goods in Quebec is in the thousandths of a percentage point. Now the Conservatives are telling us that, if there are variations in the price of emissions allowances in Quebec’s system, it is the federal government’s fault. The member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis helped implement Quebec’s system when she was a Liberal cabinet minister in Quebec.
The Conservatives did not make these statements in just any committee. The member for Lethbridge made a statement Tuesday in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In the newspapers in her riding, this member said that francophone artists from Quebec were a bunch of losers who could not achieve commercial success. The Conservative member for Lethbridge who said this was suddenly interested in the impact of the carbon tax on Quebec culture. She cares about the impact of the carbon tax on losers in Quebec. She said it was very serious.
Of course, there is a knight in shining armour on the committee, the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, who came to his colleague's rescue when he said that he would join the member for Lethbridge in explaining the collateral damage of the carbon tax on the arts community. I would like to tell the member for Drummond that he understands very well that Quebec chose the carbon exchange system adopted almost ten years ago, but because of pressure from a Liberal government.
Yet, it was the Harper government in Ottawa that was regulating clean fuels. It was the Harper government.
As we know, under Quebec's system, that is to say the system implemented by the Liberal member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, which I like to repeat because she was a Liberal in the Charest government, the number of permits traded is set in advance. It was determined by an order in council before the current government came to power. We know the number of permits that will be traded, even if there is a change of government. In addition, their price is increasing.
The Conservatives are trying to make Quebeckers believe that the federal carbon tax applies to Quebec. They must be at their 18th carbon tax. To hear them talk, that is all there is in the economy: carbon taxes. That is what they are trying to make us believe.
It is true, however, that the price of carbon has gone up in Quebec. The Conservatives blame this on “justinflation” yet, in Europe, the price of permits has increased from 20 euros to 100 euros since 2005, and they are planning to reduce the number of permits by 62% by 2030. “Justinflation” has an impact as far away as Europe? Everything is in everything—
1101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
