44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/22/22 10:20:00 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleagues to quiet down so that I can ask my question.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:20:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the childish antics are finally over.
I have often heard the Conservatives claim that they champion respect for jurisdictions, including Quebec's jurisdiction. However, in their motion, they indicate that they want to revoke part of the Quebec sales tax.
I would like someone to explain to me how the House of Commons can magically lower a tax that falls under the jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly.
I am anxious to hear my colleague's answer. I am breaking out in a cold sweat.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 10:59:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the cheering crowd has me feeling generous, so I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
The member for Abbotsford's motion reminded me of a university class I used to teach on populism. A fairly simple definition of populism is proposing simplistic solutions to complex problems. Inflation is a complex problem to which people can propose simplistic solutions. Let us unpack that together.
One good approach to analyzing populism is to look at populist themes, which I find even more interesting. What are those? A stock populist theme is telling people we are going to put more money in their pockets. Beware of politicians who say that. It is not as though public services pay for themselves. These are tough times. COVID‑19 put our health care system through the wringer. We need health transfers, and that money does not grow on trees. It comes from taxes. Nevertheless there will always be politicians who say they are going to put more money back in people's pockets. That is a populist theme.
Another populist theme involves denying global warming. Some people simply want to keep things as they are and not make any effort, because they believe global warming does not exist, so the oil and gas sector is not to blame. People who study populism often see this type of discourse.
To my great delight, both of these populist themes have been included in the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues. We are not in an election period, but I already have concerns about the electoral intent of provoking discontent among the population. It seems to me that that is what this motion is all about.
I say this because that kind of discourse is completely inconsistent. During the last election campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party came to Quebec and said that he would respect Quebec's jurisdictions. This motion proposes that the House reduce the GST, which is perfectly feasible, because the GST is federal. It also proposes reducing the QST, the Quebec sales tax, which I think is entirely impossible. The House of Commons can adopt as many motions as it likes, but it cannot change Quebec's laws. Suggesting to Canadians that Ottawa can reduce the QST is pure fiction. This is really just a figure of speech, a kind of populism.
The other thing the motion calls for is a 5% reduction of the price of gasoline at the pumps. That may appear to be interesting and attractive. It is easy to understand and is just another populist theme. In the meantime, their motion was tabled on March 17 and gas prices have already gone down by 5%. In fact, the purpose of the motion is to use inflation to rally the discontented.
Then the Conservatives also talk about a temporary reduction. I wonder what they mean by “temporary”. In the context of fighting climate change, when we really should not be giving people any incentive to consume more gas but instead maybe encourage them to use an electric vehicle, I wonder what temporary means. The motion says that “the House call[s] on the government to immediately provide relief at the pumps to all Canadians”. If that is not an attempt to get people to consume more oil, then I do not know what is.
Another key aspect of my colleagues' motion is a very Conservative intention to get everyone but the oil companies to pay. The oil companies are the main beneficiaries of the increased price of crude oil. It is not the government who is pocketing the huge profits being made at the extraction stage with the increased price of oil, it is the oil companies.
However, that is not all. Oil companies also pocket exorbitant profits at the refining stage. The refining margin, or the amount oil companies charge to refine crude oil, has quadrupled in one year, rising from $1.15 U.S. per barrel in February 2021 to $4.40 U.S. today. We might wonder who benefits here. Certainly it is not the government that benefits from the rising price of oil and refinery costs.
According to the Conservatives, the government is never generous enough towards the oil companies. The best way to protect consumers from the oil companies that are fleecing them is to ensure that the oil industry contributes to relief measures for Canadians who bear the burden these companies have created.
Just yesterday, the Conservatives opposed the idea of asking the oil companies for a special contribution to finance measures that would help Canadians deal with inflation. With today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing that all taxpayers contribute to the relief for gas consumers, whether through taxes or service cuts. To put it bluntly, that is a very bad idea.
In conclusion, I want to say that being irrational is the worst thing that a politician can do. Being rational is essential in politics. We must be aware of where our own interests lie, because many things can make us act irrationally. Love makes us irrational. I am irrational when it comes to my partner. I often forget my own interests.
Allow me to explain by referring to French singer Johnny Hallyday. Although I am not a big fan, some of my colleagues may know him. Some might say that Johnny Hallyday sounds a little irrational when he cries out about his feelings of love. That is the kind of irrationality that comes with love. I sense something irrational when I hear my Conservative friends shouting, “build a pipeline”.
The background on my phone is a photo of my son and my partner. On my computer, it is a Quebec flag. I am also irrational when it comes to Quebec. When I look at my Conservative colleagues' computers, I always see “I love oil and gas”. That is irrational.
Much like I have an indescribable love for my partner, the Conservatives have an irrational love for oil, and they cannot get out from under that spell. This irrational love can make our political processes ineffective because the oil lobby is given too much weight.
Let us see what is coming down the pike. Oil Change International estimates that the federal government invested $78 billion to support the oil and gas industry in 2019–20 alone. In 2015–17, it invested $111 billion. Export Development Canada hands out $14 billion to the oil and gas sector every year. We paid $21 billion for a pipeline.
At the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I am currently studying carbon capture and sequestration strategies. Everyone agrees that they do not work. However, billions of dollars will be invested in them. Moreover, the Conservative Party is telling us today that if we want to solve the inflation problem, we might have to give the oil companies more money. That is the epitome of irrationality.
What I am hearing from the Conservatives is all the more shocking because the Liberal Party is caught up in this crazy fossil fuels spiral and it, too, feels compelled to add to it. Canada is therefore trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold and it cannot escape it. Everything is analyzed from the oil industry's perspective. The Conservatives are analyzing the crisis in Ukraine solely in terms of the oil industry. It is outrageous.
Now inflation is only being analyzed from the oil industry's perspective. This is very dangerous. I therefore call on my Conservative colleagues to see the light at the end of the tunnel and put an end to this toxic relationship they have with oil. I am doing this for their own good.
1303 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:09:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the first thing the federal government can do would be to respect its areas of jurisdiction.
We can see that the NDP has reached an agreement with the Liberals. We will have dental and drug coverage, which is not the responsibility of the federal government, but hey, if it makes them happy.
Perhaps the federal government could respect its areas of jurisdiction and the purchasing power of seniors, the only ones who have been left out throughout the pandemic. That might be a good thing. If we want to fight inflation, we need to support the most vulnerable people. That does not seem to be a priority in the Liberal-NDP alliance, but that is another matter.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:11:13 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.
I rarely agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North, but I agree with him. We need revenue to support seniors. I can easily find some revenue for him. If we stopped supporting the oil and gas industry, we would have some revenue.
From 2015 to 2017, $111 billion was allocated to support the most polluting sector in the world. We must reconsider this. From 2018 to 2020, $78 billion was allocated. Maybe if we ended all these oil and gas subsidies, we could use that money to do something more logical, by which I mean increase health transfers.
I invite members to think about that. That is a good starting point.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 11:12:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the one thing that should never be said to someone from Saguenay is that they are from Lac-Saint-Jean. It is a huge no-no. It is just not done.
I hardly think that we would all be going around naked if not for oil. I do not know what nonsense my colleague is talking there. I have often heard the Conservatives say that, if not for oil, we would all go back to living naked in the forest. Oil is not the basis of human evolution. The Greeks did not have oil, but they were not all going around naked, as far as I know. These days, we have electric vehicles.
The alternative I would suggest is that my colleagues consider the idea that oil companies should do their part. Is it not up to the oil companies to reduce their profit margins?
Why did they not think about that rather than reducing the government's fiscal capacity? It is their problem, not mine.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 12:28:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the English-speaking colleagues of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent are as nuanced in their arguments. In short, let us ignore the convoluted explanation.
My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said that inflation benefits the government. In this context and in the case of the oil and gas sector, inflation does not benefit the government; it benefits the oil companies.
Between 2021 and 2022, the price of a barrel of oil rose from $1.15 to $4.40. There was a profit, and the oil companies got the lion’s share. The oil companies are the ones with their hands in taxpayers’ wallets.
We are proposing to the Conservatives that special measures be put in place to ensure that oil companies pay their share. We must keep in mind that year after year, these companies receive the lion’s share of federal government funding. They are therefore double dipping into public funds, both directly at the pump, from taxpayers’ pockets, and through their taxation, by the financial support provided by the federal government.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said that they would cut taxes for the benefit of the oil companies. That is absolutely deplorable.
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 2:41:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has just experienced its own orange wave.
Once again, the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces will be undermined. Housing, child care, long‑term care, health care, pharmacare—it is pretty obvious that these sound like planks in a provincial party platform.
No matter how carefully we pore over the agreement, we will never find the words “right to opt out with full compensation”.
I wonder. Has the Prime Minister decided, with the NDP's blessing, to consolidate his power by taking power away from Quebec and the provinces?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 2:43:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is starting in with the same old refrain about bickering. What Quebeckers actually want are health transfers.
There is now an NDP-Liberal alliance that is proposing conditions, as though Ottawa knows how to manage hospitals or how the health care networks in Quebec and the provinces work.
Everyone has seen that the government is struggling to manage its own jurisdictions. Now, it claims to know better than anyone what is needed in health care, housing and child care.
The NDP-Liberal alliance is wasting its time. Why not listen to what the provinces and Quebec have to say about their own jurisdictions and increase health transfers to 35% without conditions?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
