- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- 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, yes, responding to environmental challenges is important to us. Climate change is a reality. That is why we are committed to giving the green light to green projects, precisely to accelerate access to green energy for Canadians and to cut red tape when it comes to developing lithium mines, for example. Lithium is needed for the electrification of transportation.
We know that there is lithium in Quebec and in several regions of Canada, but unfortunately, it takes a long time to make these investments. We want to give the green light to green projects to ensure that more Canadians have access to green energy.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have no authority to make any declarations other than to say that, yes, it would be a good idea. Since February 13, 1947, Alberta and other neighbouring provinces such as Saskatchewan have contributed substantially to the creation of wealth in this country, to say the least. Over $500 billion has been paid out in equalization to all provinces in Canada.
Need I remind my hon. colleague that we are facing major challenges today with respect to the environment? My colleague cherishes the province of Quebec, as do I. Need I also remind him that, in Quebec alone, we consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year? That is the reality. Surely he does not need me to remind him that the best-selling vehicle in Quebec is the Ford F-150. That is not what I drive. I do not like it.
The reality is that 47% of the oil we consume comes from the United States. As far as I know and since I checked just this morning, neither the state of Texas nor the state of Louisiana is currently contributing to equalization. That may have changed in the last few hours. If I am wrong, my colleague can stand up and say so.
211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 3:50:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate on environmental and fiscal issues.
Climate change is real. Humans contributed to climate change, so humans must contribute to reducing pollution around the globe. When I say humans, I am referring to everyone. I am referring to citizens, entrepreneurs, businesses, governments, states. I am referring to everyone. We must pitch in to reduce the environmental footprint of our actions in order to reduce pollution.
The path the government has taken to address the problem of pollution and reduce pollution is taxation. The Liberals love to say that they are putting a price on pollution. In real terms, it is called the Liberal carbon tax.
The minister was very proud to say earlier that this tax has only been in place since 2019. It has been around for almost four years, nearly half their time in power. That is not to mention that, starting in 2016, the government clearly stated that it was going to impose the Liberal carbon tax.
It is time to take stock. What is the actual, concrete result of this Liberal carbon tax? Has pollution been reduced? The answer is no.
This is why we do not like the Liberal carbon tax and want to put it aside. This is why we have a concrete plan to address the climate change challenges that we have to face and to be sure that we will have real results for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberal carbon tax is not delivering less pollution.
It is not me saying that. It is the entire planet acknowledging it. Let us start at home. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has clearly stated that the implementation of the carbon tax, which will start to triple in April, has a direct impact on inflation. Everyone knows that the number one economic challenge for every Canadian family right now is inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the Liberal carbon tax drives inflation higher. Canadians need that like they need a hole in the head.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded in a study that Canadian families get back less than they pay in. The Liberal strategy was to say that they were putting a Liberal tax on carbon, but that they would give Canadians and families a rebate so they would come out even. That sounds great in principle. It sounds great in the classroom. It sounds great to spout high-minded principles and virtue signal. However, the reality, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is that families are paying more than they are getting back from the government.
We know that, as of April 1, the government will begin tripling the carbon tax. That will have a direct impact on fuel, transportation, food prices and heating.
I talked about the whole world recognizing what the Liberal government is doing. Let us see the facts. A report based on a study by the United Nations was tabled at COP27.
In November and December, the entire planet gathered in Egypt for COP27. It is an odd place if ever there was one to talk about climate change, but it is not up to us to choose the location. It is up to the UN.
A report was tabled in the first few days on the track record of the planet as a whole, on the efforts being made to combat pollution and climate change. This report assessed 63 countries. I have that document here. The first study that was done provides a clear picture of how countries performed when it comes to dealing with climate change.
Canada, under this Liberal government, ranks 58th. We did not come up with this, the UN did. A panel of experts was created to analyze the 63 most developed nations in the world. Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries. These are people who have been constantly telling us for seven years now that “Canada is back”. They say that Canada is doing great, that we are making extraordinary efforts, that we have ambitious targets, that we are good for the environment.
I would remind the House that Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. The Liberals have always been sanctimonious.
That is what I had to say about tackling climate change.
Concerning greenhouse gas emissions, Canada, under the current Liberal government, ranks 57th out of 63 countries. That is not as bad, since it has moved up by one spot. That is what Canada is like with the Liberal carbon tax.
Concerning renewable energy, Canada ranks 52nd out of 63 countries. There are 51 countries that are more effective than this sanctimonious government.
Finally, if we look at the evaluation of energy use, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government, ranks 63rd out of 63 countries.
It is not the Conservatives saying so, it is the United Nations in a report tabled at COP27. The document concludes that, when it comes to climate change, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government that created the Liberal carbon tax, ranks 58th out of 63 countries.
“Canada is back” said the Prime Minister when he was elected. Canada is way back eight years later; that is the truth.
Those are the UN's rankings.
Let me also remind the House that those folks over there got elected by saying that Canada was going to be a world leader in the fight against climate change.
I remember one particular moment very clearly. The member for Papineau had not been Prime Minister for three months when he went to a conference in Toronto to lecture everyone. He said that, yes, for sure, Canada is back and that what matters is not just what is under our feet, but what is between our ears.
He was proud to say those words, as though when we were in government, we did not care what people had between their ears. How arrogant.
In fact, it is more than arrogant considering that, after eight years of a Liberal government, Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in the fight against climate change. None of the targets it set were met. Pollution was not reduced, despite the Paris Agreement. They said that the previous Conservative government's track record on the environment was abysmal, even though greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector were reduced by 2.2% during the eight years of our government. The Paris Agreement could have changed the world. What did the entire planet do in Paris in 2015? It used the exact same targets set by the Canadian Conservative government, to the decimal point.
What did this government do with that target? It did nothing, zero.
Out of about 200 countries, barely a dozen or so met the Paris target. Where does the Liberal Canada of this sanctimonious government rank?
It is missing in action. It is not among those who achieved the goal of the Paris Agreement. This is typical Liberal virtue signalling. What are the results?
That is why we see the Liberal decision to impose a tax as a tax plan, not a pollution reduction plan.
In addition, the Liberals plan to impose their vision and their numbers on all the provinces, including on us, on Quebec. Quebec decided to join a carbon exchange. This proves that the federal government did not have to get involved, because the provinces could have done it if they wanted to.
Prices were set, but the federal government decided it had the power to impose its own carbon price on the provinces whose system is different from the federal system.
We will see in April, six months from now, a year from now, once the Liberal government has tripled the carbon tax, how the provinces respond. What will happen when the government increases the carbon tax? The provinces will be stuck with it and will not have the right to say a word about it. We will see what the Liberal government does with that.
Our approach has always been clear. We want to use technology, not taxes, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone, all Canadians, individuals, businesses and governments, we all have to work together to reduce greenhouse gases using fiscal incentives, not punitive taxes. We also have to green-light green energy to make it more readily available to Canadians.
What our leader said when he became the leader of the Conservative Party and the official opposition was absolutely right. He said:
“Green light to green projects”. This is where we stand. We have a policy to help people, not to tax them.
1443 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 2:09:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the environment, the Liberal government talks a lot, taxes a lot, but does not do much. I am not the one saying this, it is in the report released at COP27 today, which concludes that, of 63 countries, Canada ranks 58th.
Rather than tax Canadians, we want to reduce our carbon footprint where emissions are being generated. It is not the government's role to tell companies what to do; it must help them reduce their emissions through research and development. It must make green energies more affordable by reducing the amount of paperwork and red tape to allow more hydroelectric dams and the development of lithium and other mines for electric vehicles.
We need to promote and export Canadian know-how. We are the best in the world when it comes to carbon capture, hydroelectricity, wind power and nuclear energy. We must support our green energies here in Canada rather than exporting billions of dollars offshore, and in so doing, allow first nations to share in Canada's prosperity.
The world needs Canadian know-how now more than ever. Let us be proud of Canada.
192 words
- 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
