- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Bloc Québécois
- Thérèse-De Blainville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $122,743.44
- Government Page
- Dec/7/23 12:32:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, one step forward, two steps back. That is the impression I am getting from this debate. We are concerned about people who are struggling with the cost of living, and we are concerned about the housing crisis that is affecting our constituents. However, the Conservatives' proposal would do nothing to correct these situations, just like the government's climate change policies.
There is one thing that could be done. Canada is a petro-state, and climate change affects everything we are talking about: the price of groceries, agriculture, housing and food. In that context, how do the Conservatives aim to present a serious plan to address climate change?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 10:46:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to point out to my colleague that Quebec's agriculture sector is not regulated by federal carbon pricing or the Quebec carbon market.
If the Conservatives are so concerned about farmers, what is their game plan for fighting climate change, which is having a major impact on our agriculture industry?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe the member is sincere when she talks about environmental values and protecting the environment. However, I still see a contradiction. I would not wish to praise the current government's policies on climate change, far from it, because they fall short. Protecting the environment means investing substantially to counter the effects of climate change. I believe this value is completely contrary to what her party is advocating, which is to continue to contribute to the growth of the oil and gas sector.
Could the member explain how it is possible to protect the environment while at the same time continuing to build on an energy source that is no longer—
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:26:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, not for Newfoundland and Labrador. As we know, whether we are in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec or anywhere else in Canada, the main reason that should motivate us to be here is to help significantly reduce the impact of our carbon footprint on citizens.
What does my colleague think and what does he have to say to his fellow citizens about the costs generated by the failure to act on climate change, which is affecting their living conditions and their health?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 10:41:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, there are some fallacies in the objectives of this proposal.
At the same time, we can acknowledge that some people are struggling with inflation. I just finished a visit where I met with seniors. There is definitely cause to ask the federal government to do more for the most vulnerable. However, continuing to rely on oil and hydrocarbons to contribute to socio-economic conditions seems to be exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
Why is my colleague stuck on the idea of denying climate change and continuing to increase its effects by promoting oil and gas?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with respect to training, I did not see anything in the budget about climate change, the environment or the just transition we need for workers. That is a gaping hole.
With respect to employment insurance and existing training programs, I completely agree. However, I would ask the federal government to transfer money to the provinces because this falls under provincial jurisdiction, as I said earlier. I applaud the work being done right now to have employers contribute a portion of their payroll to cover—
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I want to pick up on something he said. To admit that we have seen 30 years of climate inaction is to admit that this government is responsible for a large part of that. I have a question that I think deserves very clear answers.
We have heard a lot about investing in the transition, but the latest report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was quite critical of the transition. The commissioner said that “the federal government was not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy”. He also said that the government was not up to the task of ensuring a fair transition for workers, citing the coal industry in particular.
If they close one door, they have to open another, unless of course, they do not really plan on closing the first door. That is my question.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
