- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- Jun/1/23 10:44:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I simply want to say to my colleague that he spoke about certain states in the U.S. participating in the exchange, but not all states do. Our economy is essentially based on collaborating with the United States, not just some of the states. That is a big difference.
Need I remind members that after eight years of Liberal governance and the application of the Liberal carbon tax, Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries?
In the midst of the worst inflation crisis in 40 years, the Liberals want to impose $436 in additional taxes on Quebec families. I am against that.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:40:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Quebec has never supported the idea of Ottawa imposing a price on carbon. This centralizing, overreaching Liberal government is imposing a major change on the provinces. Ottawa knows what the price is, but the provinces do not. This is a direct attack on the provinces' responsibilities.
I want to say one thing about everything that is being done. The companies are the ones polluting, and they know how and why they are polluting. They are also the ones who know how to reduce pollution. It is not up to Ottawa to tell them how to do it, especially not by increasing their taxes.
They should instead be given tax incentives so that they can directly reduce pollution in a concrete and real way. It is everyone's duty to reduce pollution, but it is not Ottawa's job to tell them how to do it, on top of imposing a tax. No, it is up to businesses to do it, with tax incentives. Giving tax incentives does not mean giving subsidies as the current government is doing.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:29:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate that affects all families, particularly following such an eloquent speech by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
Climate change is real. Humans played a role in creating climate change and so humans have a role to play in reducing its effects. The government is proposing a tax to reduce the impact of climate change. That is not the path that we are taking.
As we speak, we know that 1.5 million Canadians used food banks this month. One in five families will skip a meal this week because they do not have enough money in their pockets.
Inflation is the highest it has been in 40 years. That is the daily reality of Canadian families. The government is saying that, in order to provide direct assistance to Canadian families who are struggling because they do not have enough money in their pockets and have to skip meals, it has to impose a new tax. The government has to create a new tax and take even more money out of people's pockets.
For years, Canadians who have been saving have noticed that, under the Liberal government, the price of housing has doubled, the cost of borrowing to buy a house has doubled and the down payment required to buy a house has doubled. All of that has happened in the eight years that the Liberal government has been in power.
Families are having a hard time. The government's brilliant idea for helping Canadians is to create a new tax, the Liberal carbon tax 2.0. The Liberals think that the issue of climate change can be solved by taxing Canadians, but we believe that that is not the answer, especially in inflationary times.
Let us get one thing straight. The system in Quebec is different from those in other provinces. Quebec has a carbon exchange. One thing that everyone seems to forget in this debate, especially the Liberals and the NDP, is that, in passing the act that created the Liberal carbon tax, the federal government gave itself the right to impose a price on carbon in all of the provinces, regardless of whether or not they had a carbon exchange. The federal government was the only one that knew how much more this would cost. The Liberal federal government wants to impose its philosophy on everyone. It is unfortunate to see people who call themselves nationalists agreeing with the invasive approach taken by the Liberal government, aided and abetted by its pal, the NDP.
For eight years, the Liberal government has been in power. For eight years, the government has been lecturing the entire planet. “Canada is back”: That is what the Prime Minister was so proud to say in Paris in 2015.
Canada is way back; it is really way back. In the last eight years, the government has failed to reach any goals, except one during the COVID tragedy. If the government's plan is to shut down the economy in Canada to achieve its goal, I do not think this is the right way to go, and it is certainly not the one we will follow.
This government talks a good game but never follows through. Need I remind members that the Minister of Environment, the founder of Equiterre, is now being personally sued because, according to the document filed with the Federal Court on May 6, 2022, the government talks a lot, but fails to react or take any concrete actions?
The Conservatives are not the only ones who can see that the government's track record on climate change is mediocre. The United Nations sees it too. Last November in Egypt, which is a strange place to hold a conference on climate change, but that is the venue the organizers chose, the United Nations tabled a report on the performance of the 63 most important countries in the world for fighting climate change. “Canada is back”, he said eight years ago.
What did the UN think? It ranked Canada 58th out of 63 countries when it comes to climate change. That is what the report says, and that number is not all.
Let us look at another table. How does Canada rank among the 63 countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? It ranks 57th. That is not bad. It moved up a rung. “Canada is back”, indeed—way back.
Now let us talk about renewable energy. How is Canada doing after eight years of Liberal government? It ranks 52nd out of 63, yet it is telling the whole world what to do.
In terms of energy consumption, we are not doing at all well. Canada ranks 63rd out of 63. Canada certainly is back, at the back of the pack. It could not go any lower, since only 63 countries were evaluated. The upshot is that Canada, which loves to lecture everyone else, ranks 58th out of 63. We are not the ones saying that. It comes straight from the UN, yet the Liberals want to tell us what to do.
As I said earlier, pollution is real and must be reduced. Everyone has to work together to reduce pollution. The Liberal approach of imposing a Liberal tax on carbon is not the right way to do that, much less when this tax is doubled. For Canadian families, that means $573 more. For Quebec families, it is $436 more. This is in addition to the carbon exchange that exists in Quebec. As my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable said, according to the report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, there is an effect, but it is difficult to pinpoint the price exactly because it is the business that must absorb the costs.
The second Liberal carbon tax will have a direct impact, in that families will need to pay $436 more.
Why does the Liberal carbon tax not work?
If every country in the world had a carbon tax pegged at the same level, we could look closely at that, but this is not the case. I would remind members that, geographically speaking, we have a rather imposing neighbour to the south. There are 40 million Canadians compared with more than 300 million Americans. The U.S. is our next-door neighbour and our most significant financial partner, but it is also our greatest competitor. Our economies are interconnected, and we are proud of that, we are privileged, but we still have to participate on equal terms and get the same results everywhere, so that we can then conquer the world. The carbon tax does not exist in the President Biden's United States.
I was very proud to welcome the President of the United States here. He was just a few feet away from me. There is no denying that it was exciting. He has taken a leading role in the global fight against climate change, yet he does not impose a tax in his own country. Why should we Canadians have one, when our main neighbour, main partner and main competitor does not have one? Perhaps it is because the United States knows it is a risky move to go after American families directly.
That is not to mention the fact that our country generates 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, whereas the United States generates 14%. We also know that China is responsible for one-third of the world's pollution and that India produces an enormous amount of pollution. Many emerging countries are increasing their environmental impact because their economies are doing better. We must keep that in mind.
The last time I checked, pollution travels. I have never seen a CO2 molecule travelling with a passport. Pollution knows no borders. If other places in the world do not have the same measures as we do in Canada, then we are just undermining our economy without obtaining the tangible results we are trying to achieve.
We believe that we need to take specific concrete action to reduce pollution with tax incentives for investing in the high-tech sector, that we need to give the green light to green energies, that we need to be proud of our Canadian expertise in exporting around the world, particularly to emerging countries, and that we must do all of this with the support and co-operation of the first nations. Those are the four pillars that will help us to combat climate change. That is what we need to do, rather than taxing Canadians.
1449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know that this Liberal government likes to be in control. It clearly demonstrated that yesterday when it created a secret committee with secret hearings, secret evidence and secret findings. That is absolute control.
This government is showing that same need for control with the CRTC act. However, there is one thing that this government cannot control, and that is Quebec's desire to be heard.
Could the minister convene the parliamentary committee so that Quebec can explain its position?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we, the Conservatives, stand up for Quebec and the provinces.
Last April, the Government of Quebec sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What did the Minister of Canadian Heritage do with that letter? He went into his office, looked around to ensure no one was there, lifted his pile of files and put the letter at the bottom. He did nothing for one year. With the collusion of the Bloc Québécois, there has been radio silence.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is a seasoned parliamentarian. He knows that the best way to tackle a file is to bring people before a parliamentary committee.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage persuade his Bloc friends to say yes to Quebec's demand?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the government to be a bit more consistent. First my colleague says that we are filibustering, and then he says that we have done nothing, that we are asleep. It cannot be both.
In any case, what we have done is neither one nor the other. We have done our parliamentary work.
As we speak, the National Assembly of Quebec is asking to be heard by this government on Bill C‑11, to ensure that Quebec has a voice.
If the Bloc Québécois is okay with giving the federal government all of the power, that is its choice. However, we want Quebec to be heard.
We have been asking for this for five days now. Will the government hold a parliamentary committee meeting to listen to Quebec and also to review the Senate amendments?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly has twice asked to be heard by this government on Bill C-11. However, with the Bloc Québécois's support, co-operation and complicity, the feds just do the work by themselves.
The government is maintaining its extremely centralizing, unilateral and heavy-handed position of giving the federal cabinet more powers to tell Quebeckers what the CRTC will let them watch.
Maybe the Bloc Québécois agrees with that, but we do not.
Will the Bloc-Liberal alliance finally let the Government of Quebec be heard?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the member, or rather the leader of the Liberal-Bloc Québécois party, wants to talk about a caucus, he should maybe look in his own backyard.
I am not sure everyone is going to be in the photo of his caucus. I am just throwing it out there. There might be more Bloc Québécois members than Liberals.
The reality is that the minister likes to bicker with the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc is not complaining because Quebec's interests must be defended.
Will the minister agree to meet with the Government of Quebec in committee so that it can express its views on this bill that it does not like?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Bloc Québécois and Liberal Party alliance thinks it is taking too long, perhaps he needs a reminder that it was his own government that called an unnecessary election, which delayed the bill.
Even back then, the Bloc Québécois was not interested.
I will ask my question again: Can the Bloc Québécois and Liberal Party minister stand in the House and give assurances that Quebec will be heard at the parliamentary committee, as it should be?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, for over 10 months now, the alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the centralizing Liberal Party of Canada has scorned Quebec with respect to the bill on the CRTC.
Ten months ago, the Quebec government asked to be heard. The Bloc-Liberal alliance refused to respond to that. The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously on a motion to that effect just this week. There was even one a year ago, but with the complicity of the members of the Bloc-Liberal alliance, nothing was done.
Time is running out. It is imperative that Quebec be heard. Will the Bloc-Liberal alliance agree to hear Quebec in a parliamentary committee, to hear what Quebec has to say and—
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, who would have thought? Not only is the Liberal government no longer bickering with the Bloc Québécois, but now it is bickering with the Government of Quebec at the National Assembly. That is not what it means to speak on behalf of Quebec.
The fact is that Quebec is the home of the French fact. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly want to be heard in parliamentary committee.
Could the new star of the Bloc Québécois, who happens to be minister of the alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party, stand up and assure Quebec that, yes, Quebec's grievances over this bill will be heard in parliamentary committee?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is more than a consensus in Quebec; there is unanimity. The National Assembly voted unanimously to demand that this government hear what it has to say on Bill C‑11. We realize that members of the Bloc-Liberal alliance may not have read the bill carefully. Clause 7 gives greater power to cabinet to direct the CRTC. This centralizes power at the federal level, and the Bloc Québécois is okay with that.
Could the Liberal or Bloc minister, since it is hard to know which is which, tell the House that, yes, they will allow the Quebec proposal and the amendments to be heard in parliamentary committee?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister to be cautious. Listening to Quebec does not mean filibustering. It means being respectful of the will of the Government of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly.
While the Liberal government may be very happy with its new friends from the Bloc Québécois, which has become the centralist Bloc, and may be refusing to abide by the unanimous position of the Quebec National Assembly and Quebec's request, we, the Conservatives, want to have those debates.
Will the government accept our proposal to send Bill C-11 to committee so that the committee can examine the Senate's definitive request and, more importantly, listen to the Government of Quebec?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, how can a member from Quebec, a minister from Quebec, refuse to listen to the demands of the Government of Quebec?
I understand that the purpose of Bill C‑11 is to centralize power in Ottawa, with help from the Bloc Québécois, which I might have to start calling the “centralist bloc”.
Will the Liberal government and its Bloc Québécois buddies allow the parliamentary committee to study the Senate amendments and Quebec's legitimate request?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride and emotion to take part once again in the debate on medical assistance in dying.
I have had the privilege of being a member of Parliament for nearly eight years now. I was also a member of the Quebec National Assembly from 2008 to 2015. I, along with my colleague from Bourassa, am one of the few here who have participated in the debate on medical assistance in dying as a member both at the provincial level and the federal level. I can say in all modesty that this gives me a very unique perspective. I will expand on this in a moment.
If there is one issue that calls for political partisanship to be put aside, it is medical assistance in dying. I have a fundamental belief that has not altered one bit in the time I have been involved in these debates: There is no right or wrong position, there is only the position that each person, as a human being, is comfortable with.
When we hear an opposing viewpoint, we should listen and respect it, not attack it in a partisan way. I will always remember something that happened in June 2014 in the National Assembly. A Liberal MNA at the time, Saul Polo, was sharing his views in the debate on medical assistance in dying. He was vehemently opposed to it, to an extent that is hard to imagine. I remember it very well, because I was sitting along a line in the National Assembly that was perpendicular to where he was. His face was flushed with passion and his fist was clenched, and he was saying that we should not touch this subject. When he finished his remarks, I stood up and applauded him, not because I agreed with him, but because I was celebrating the fact that in that legislature we could have completely divergent, but respected and respectful views.
That is the approach we should be taking when dealing with an issue as personal, sensitive and human as medical assistance in dying. We can trade jabs back and forth all day long, and let us just say that I do pretty well when it comes to attacking my opponent. There may be 1,000 good reasons to attack one's opponent, but please, we must not use MAID to attack one another. We must respect opposite views.
We have come together today because the government has decided to set aside its goal to allow access to medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness. It is the right thing to do. While I personally support a well-regulated MAID regime combined with extensive palliative care, the issue of medical assistance in dying for people with mental illness is extremely sensitive, so these kinds of measures must not be rushed through.
The government had intended to expand access to MAID as soon as possible, that is, in just a few days, to include people struggling with mental illness. It has since decided to take a pause. I cannot call it a step back, because the government still plans to go ahead with this, but in a year from now. This is not the right way to go, and I will explain why.
Any number of personal reasons may be in play when people decide where they stand. I imagine we all know one person who has experienced serious mental health issues and hit rock bottom, never to recover—or so those around them believed. We all also know people who have bounced back from terrible trials that dragged them into a downward spiral, an abyss of profound sadness. With time, they managed to adapt to their reality, gradually build themselves back up and regain the sense of self-worth we all need.
That is why, as I see it right now, medical assistance in dying cannot be for people tumbling in the darkness. I have found the Quebec experience to be helpful in pondering this issue. To be clear, I am not saying that Quebec is better than anyone else. That is not it at all, but the fact is, there has been more legislative work and more studies on medical assistance in dying in Quebec than anywhere else. In Quebec, we have been talking about it for 15 years. I know what I am talking about because I participated in the debates in the National Assembly and in the House of Commons.
Here is a statistic that members might find surprising. More people are dying with medical assistance in Quebec than anywhere else in the world. The statistics published in Le Devoir in January show that 5.1% of the deaths in the province were medically assisted.
That is more than in the Netherlands and Belgium, which have rates of 4.8% and 2.3%, respectively.
Should we be proud of that situation? Should we be ashamed of it? No. It is just something that we should be aware of. It is not up to me to judge the fact that 5.3% of people in Quebec are currently choosing to have medical assistance in dying. That is just the reality. The figures do not lie.
The Quebec nation worked hard on this issue at the parliamentary level and, a few years ago, the government opened the door to studying the idea of whether medical assistance in dying should be made available to those suffering from mental illness.
After many weeks of thorough and rigorous work and hearing from as many as 3,000 people and hundreds of experts as part of a consultation process, the committee that examined the issue and the government in office decided not to move forward on medical assistance in dying for those suffering from mental illness. Why?
Here is what it says in the committee's report, and I quote:
We note, at the conclusion of our work, that there is no clear medical consensus on the incurability of mental disorders and the irreversible decline in capability that would be associated with them. There are differing positions among specialists. As legislators, it is difficult for us to comment on this issue.
The Liberal MNA David Birnbaum explained:
There is no clear consensus in the medical community on the incurability and irreversibility of mental disorders. Yet [these criteria] are part of the fundamental guidelines in the current legislation. Persistent doubts about the evaluation of these two criteria lead us to exercise [the greatest] caution.
That prompted the former Parti Québécois MNA for Joliette, Véronique Hivon, to say:
This decision proves that the goal is not to open up access more and more, to expand, but to open up the right amount of access to respect the individual while protecting the vulnerable.
That comes from Quebec, where 5.3% of the population chooses medical assistance in dying. This legislative measure came from Quebec. For 15 years, Quebec has been studying the issue of medical assistance in dying in an objective, neutral, non-partisan manner. I know what I am talking about, and so much the better.
The current government wanted to proceed hastily on this issue. No. I applaud and will vote in favour of this bill we are discussing this evening. It will allow us to take a lateral step to delay the Liberals' ambition. We will see where things stand in a year and whether they want to go further on this.
Everyone needs to understand one thing. By its very nature, medical assistance in dying is irreversible. Louise-Maude Rioux Soucy said it well in an editorial that appeared in Le Devoir on January 4:
MAID is offered as part of the continuum of care...There is an unwritten obligation attached to it: the quality and universality of palliative care must be beyond reproach in order to guarantee, at all times and in all circumstances, that medical assistance in dying is an exception.
I will now talk about a much more personal story. Last year, I was confronted with the reality of death. My mother, aged 97 years and 10 months, died in May, and my father, aged 99 years, four months and two days, died in December. As we can see, they died seven months apart and lived for a century. They were seriously ill at the end of their lives. In the winter of their lives, my mother and father fought to survive and death came for them.
MAID never came up because it was a non-issue. They were not interested. Our family was lucky. They got the most excellent palliative care available, and we are grateful. We were able to talk to them. Their children, grandchildren and even their great-grandchildren were able to talk to them. I wanted to share this because, at the hospital where my mother was, there was a section for people receiving palliative care who were about to die in a matter of days and, just down the hall, there was another section for people about to receive MAID. I had some great conversations with family members and even the individuals who requested MAID. The point is, we can and must respect the wishes of every individual. There is no right or wrong. There is only what we are comfortable with. I am comfortable with MAID as long as palliative care is available.
1573 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:32:28 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am pleased with my colleague's question, but I am a bit upset that he did not use the word “skeptical”. Generally when he hears a Conservative member, he says he is skeptical, so I am a bit upset, but I think he will have another chance. Obviously I am just teasing my colleague.
The question he raises is very important, especially when it comes to pipelines. The member must know that Jason Kenney did not invent pipelines. There have been pipelines in Quebec since 1942. Do members know how many kilometres of pipeline there currently are in Quebec? The answer is nearly 2,000. Do members know that there are currently pipelines under the St. Lawrence River? There are not just one, two or three. There are not just five, six, seven or eight, either. In fact, there are nine.
Does the member know that, in 2012, Quebec launched a brand-new pipeline? That pipeline is not in a so-called remote region, with all due respect to the people who do not live in city centres. This is a St. Lawrence pipeline that starts in Lévis and goes to Montreal, spans 248 kilometres, 630 different lands and crosses 26 waterways in the St. Lawrence River. This pipeline has been in place since 2012 and operates so well that no one is aware of it and no one talks about it.
239 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 5:09:10 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part this evening in the debate on Bill S‑5 on the environment, especially since it has been nearly three weeks since I was named the official opposition critic on the environment and climate change. I want to thank my leader, the member for Carleton, for trusting me with this exceptional mandate.
It is also exceptional to all Canadians, especially to our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren because they are the ones we need to think about when we consider taking action regarding the environment and climate change.
I am weighing my words. I am the climate change critic because climate change is real. Humankind, men and women, have contributed to it and humankind, men and women, have to participate in mitigating climate change and the impact it has on humanity as a whole and on the planet.
I also want to commend my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon. I have had the honour of working with him for nearly two years. He used to be the environment and climate change critic. He was very helpful and instrumental in the entirely acceptable and honourable transition between my previous duties regarding industry and the ones I am tasked with now regarding the environment and climate change.
The debate today is about Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.
Bill S‑5 is a technical bill that also provides a vision for the environment for the next 50 years. The bill also updates the regulations that have been in force since 1999. It goes without saying that we needed to make some major changes. We should also remember that this bill is more or less the same bill that was introduced as Bill C‑28 in the previous Parliament.
Speaking of the previous Parliament, more than a year ago, the current Prime Minister called an election one fine summer day when he decided that it would be a good idea to spend $630 million of taxpayers' money on an election that resulted in a House of Commons that was essentially the same. In the middle of a pandemic, when he said that we had to focus on the fourth wave, $630 million was spent. When we were in the midst of a fourth wave, the Prime Minister called an election, with the result that today, one year later, we are debating exactly, or just about, the same bill that had already been debated in the House of Commons. If it seems today that the government is not acting quickly enough on the environment, this is proof. The Prime Minister called a $630-million election so that the House of Commons would end up in about the same position, and now we need to start Bill C‑28 all over again.
It is rather surprising that the government decided to go through the other chamber. We know that we have a bicameral system, which means that there are two chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate. Both have the same legislative power. They both have the same power to tax citizens. The government decided to bring back Bill C‑28 but through the Senate this time. Then, the House of Commons needs to examine it. All of this is normal and above board, and I am not in any way trying to call into question the legitimacy of the upper chamber. On the contrary, I greatly appreciate the serious and rigorous work that senators do. They are able to work in a less partisan manner because they do not need to get re-elected. We therefore understand that it is exactly the same thing, but we are still rather surprised to see such an important bill originate in the Senate where there are no ministers, rather than in the House of Commons like normal. I guess I should say “as usual” because there is nothing abnormal about a bill originating in the Senate. I would not say that.
This bill was amended 24 times. The initial bill, Bill C‑28, was introduced again almost word for word in the Senate. The Senate examined it and made 24 amendments. We will have the opportunity to come back to that later, but in our system, it is important to understand that when the Senate makes amendments, the House of Commons must approve them.
If the House does not agree, the bill has to go back to the Senate so that the Senate can say whether it does or does not agree. If it does not, then the bill returns to the House. That can happen many times. Generally speaking, according to parliamentary tradition, a bill is passed in the House of Commons and then it goes to the Senate, which can make amendments. If the Senate does make amendments, then the bill returns to the House of Commons. If the House rejects the Senate's amendments, then the version of the bill passed by the House of Commons returns to the Senate. Usually, the Senate passes the same version, otherwise we can be playing ping-pong for a rather long time, and that may not necessarily be for the good of Canadians. We will see how things go with this 65-page bill.
Basically, as members were saying, this bill is an update of the Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which sets out general priority areas of action for the environment. We are wondering whether we should continue in that direction or whether things should be done differently. The bill talks about how everyone has the right to a healthy environment and about considering vulnerable populations.
When speaking of vulnerable populations, the first words that come to mind are “first nations”. The Conservatives' vision is that first nations must be and are partners in prosperity. When we undertake environmental projects, projects to develop our natural resources, projects that develop what we have on our land for the benefit of all Canadians and humanity through the intelligent use that we must make of it, we have to ensure that first nations are partners in prosperity.
In that regard, I would like to cite the example of natural resources in Quebec, which is a part of the country that I know well, to say the least. I am going to share a secret that I want everyone to keep under wraps. In my seven years in the Quebec National Assembly, I have always had a keen interest in natural resources, which I liked to call “natural riches”. Our resources are clearly riches when they are developed intelligently and respectfully.
Earlier I was listening to my colleagues and friends from the Bloc Québécois rightly talk about Quebec's expertise in green energy and renewable energy. Look at the hydroelectric projects. Let us not forget that Hydro-Québec was founded in 1944 under the leadership of the government of Joseph-Adélard Godbout. Then, in the 1950s, there was a lot of development involving this natural wealth that was the natural resources and the power of hydroelectricity. In 1949, the Beauharnois plant, which was managed by Hydro-Québec, doubled in size. In 1951, work began on the first major dams in the middle of the forest, the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 dams, inaugurated in 1953 and in 1956.
In 1954-55, very serious work began and studies were conducted on the two major rivers in Quebec for their extraordinary potential for hydroelectricity, the Outardes and Manicouagan rivers. In 1958, the Government of Quebec gave the green light for the major development of the seven main hydroelectric power plants that we have on the Ottawa river and the Manicouagan river. Everyone remembers Manic-5. Work there began in 1958.
The was also true for Carillon in 1959-60. The Carillon plant is an interesting example because, as early as 1959, the government had indicated to Hydro-Québec that the plant was to be run by French Canadians, as they were called at the time, in other words, Quebeckers. It was the first time that Quebeckers were responsible for the development of a power plant, and it was inaugurated in 1962, if I am not mistaken.
In short, a great deal of potential was developed in the 1950s and 1960s with the work that was done. I mention this because, in 1965, there was an agreement between the Quebec government and the first nations where the Manicouagan-Outardes project was located. A financial agreement was reached in 1965. It was worth barely $50,000. Six years later, when the Quebec government, under Robert Bourassa, launched the massive project in James Bay, the first nations there were not happy and held large demonstrations to ensure that they would be included as partners in those projects. After years of good faith negotiations between the first nations and the government of Premier Robert Bourassa, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was established.
I may be wrong about that, which is fine because it will give me a chance to learn more about our national history in Canada, but, to my knowledge, that was the first time there was such a lucrative agreement between equals, a partnership for prosperity between a government and first nations.
That agreement set the bar. In just 10 years, the parties moved from a $50,000 agreement to a permanent agreement for prosperity with positive economic outcomes for first nations and for the Quebec nation in the hundreds of millions of dollars. To us, it is clear that first nations are partners for prosperity in natural resource and environmental project development. I hope my colleagues will forgive me for going off on a bit of a tangent, but I do think it was somewhat interesting.
Getting back to Bill S‑5, let us talk about the toxic substances list. This is the central element of this bill, which addresses the rules for assessment, ministerial powers and products that can become toxic. We all need to realize that science has made incredibly rapid progress, which is a good thing. What was being done 10 years ago is obsolete; it is already outdated. We have to constantly adapt and update our techniques for properly developing and identifying products that are now toxic. Used one way, they may not necessarily be toxic, but if they are toxic, we have to be sure of it and know exactly where they will end up. That is what this bill takes on while at the same time cutting red tape and redundancy.
There was a lot of environmental work happening as well, and some environmental rules overlapped. I would like to mention that responsibility for environmental issues is shared between the provinces and the federal government, and everyone must act in good faith. The federal or provincial governments must not duplicate one another's work or do something twice in order to say they did it while the other did not. We must be effective and we must be partners. Our leader and our party have been very clear on this.
We know that the Quebec government, through its premier, announced about a month ago that it wants to revive major hydroelectric projects. However, that does not necessarily mean building a new power plant in the middle of the forest on a river that is not currently developed. It could also mean refurbishing current facilities or taking a river with an existing dam and building a second one next to it. That is exactly what happened with Manic-5 in the 1970s. Another outlet was created on the west side, and it was named Manic-5-PA. A second power plant could be built off an existing dam to produce energy, not as much as the first, but still quite a bit.
These are projects that we believe in. If the government has the will to forge ahead, we have full confidence in the province's environmental assessors. There is no need for federal assessments in this case in order to accelerate access to this green energy, this hydroelectric energy.
That is why it is also important to update all the products related to the environment and human activity, especially chemicals. We fully support this update. It needs to be updated.
Where we do have concerns, however, is regarding how to go about updating it. This could lead to agreements that might undermine future efforts. It is important to understand that decisions in this field must be based on science as much as possible. They must be as rigorous as possible, and they need to take into account all the technological and scientific advances that are being made to identify a particular product. A particular product may be toxic initially, but when better treated, when properly treated and placed in the right location, perhaps it can be a creative source. We need to be careful in how this is defined. Nevertheless, the industry also needs to be aware of this situation and think about how to remove a product that is toxic today but could be made non-toxic later on with proper and effective treatment. This needs to be proven.
I am going to talk about risk management, but first I want to talk about the general principles that we agree on.
We agree with the principle of the right to a healthy environment. That goes without saying, although I might add that this is nothing new. I learned that this morning by doing some research and talking to some people who are a lot more familiar with this file than I am. The state of Michigan enshrined this fundamental principle in law in 1970. They did that over 50 years ago in Michigan, a very industrial state in the heart of the United States. That description of Michigan is a bit of an understatement since Michigan is home to so many industries, including the auto industry. That state enshrined in law the principle of the right to a healthy environment in 1970. To my knowledge, it has not gone bankrupt yet. Yes, we can live like that.
The same is true of Yukon, which enshrined this principle in its legislation in 2002.
As I said earlier, Bill S-5 seeks to reduce the red tape and the duplication of work for the shared provincial and federal jurisdiction. As long as everyone agrees, as long as work is not duplicated and, most importantly, as long as neither government steps on the other's toes, I am sure everything will go well.
That is why, as I stated earlier and mentioned in a question to my Bloc colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, we have confidence in the provinces, whether for Hydro‑Québec projects or the third link project.
Let us come back to the issue of risk management.
It is a very delicate situation that deserves to be well known. Canada has laws concerning risk management that are among the best in the world. We are known and renowned for that. It is nothing new because the chemical and petrochemical industry has existed in Canada since Confederation. We have always been a leader in development, but also in risk assessment, especially over the past 50 years.
Canada is a world leader in risk management in several areas. I had the pleasure of describing the development of Quebec's hydroelectric sector in detail and the major projects that were implemented in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and on James Bay. Our expertise in hydroelectricity is world renowned.
The same goes for carbon capture. Here in Canada, we have developed techniques and made some cutting-edge technological and scientific breakthroughs. We should be proud of this knowledge, which we can export, because pollution is a global problem. Other places in the world do not have the same stringent standards as Canada, and unfortunately, pollution travels.
In Canada, we have champions in the areas of green, solar, wind and hydroelectric energy and carbon capture. Let us be proud of our accomplishments and our national success stories. Let us also be proud of what we are capable of doing to export them. This creates wealth for our country, but above all, it creates wealth when we share our expertise with the rest of the world so the entire planet recognizes and agrees that Canada is a leader in many fields and that its leadership will benefit all of humanity.
When a pollutant like CO2 arrives at the border, it does not bother with the ArriveCAN. It wastes no time crossing the border and coming straight into our country.
Canada is not the only country facing major problems because of climate change. Canada has valuable expertise, and we need to spread the word. We need to champion that expertise.
I want to come back to Bill S‑5. I have one minute left and just enough time to say that 24 amendments have been proposed and we have concerns about nine of them. They are the ones we think create more problems and more red tape, so we should be more wary of that.
In closing, for us as Conservatives, climate change is real, humans are partly responsible for it and they must make the necessary efforts to correct the situation. Since this government came to power and implemented the Liberal carbon tax, pollution in Canada has not decreased. On the contrary, it has emptied the public's wallets and people are not getting their money's worth, contrary to what the Liberals say. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said as much.
For us, the environment is first and foremost about reducing greenhouse gas emissions through research and development and access to green energy. We want to accelerate the implementation of projects and promote Canadian expertise.
3028 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/24/22 4:53:47 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned that, in his opinion, the provinces have priority when the matter affects their territory directly. It is important to understand that, on this side of the House, we respect provincial jurisdiction.
Last week, the Minister of the Environment severely condemned a project that is 100% under provincial jurisdiction. He even said that he was going to conduct an investigation, when there are already environmental investigations under way. This involves the third link.
The official opposition severely condemned the Liberal minister's remarks, saying that it was a bad habit among Liberals to meddle in affairs that do not concern them and to lecture the provinces, suggesting that the people in Ottawa are better informed than the people in Quebec. This is not true at all.
We think that Quebec has full authority over environmental matters when it comes to the third link. Does my colleague agree?
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/7/22 11:26:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, if nothing changes, they will vote to triple the Liberal carbon tax on April 1, 2023. I am going to repeat my very simple question, and I want a real answer for Quebeckers. Quebec has the carbon exchange. This Liberal government wants to triple the Liberal carbon tax on April 1, 2023. My colleague must stop playing politics and give a clear answer.
What kind of impact will the government's greedy goal of tripling the Liberal carbon tax have on Quebeckers come April 1?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/7/22 11:24:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, inflation is the number one problem in Canada for all Canadian families. When we get to the point where four in five families have to cut their food budget because of inflation, action is needed. Burdening Canadians even more and increasing taxes is the worst thing to do, yet the government wants to triple the Liberal carbon tax on April 1. We know that Quebec has a carbon exchange.
Will the government clearly lay out to Quebeckers how its greedy desire to triple the Liberal carbon tax will impact Quebec?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
