SoVote

Jun/7/22 7:31:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member wrapped it up perfectly. The government is late to the game. Victims need to come first. We have seen this when we talk about the victims bill of rights and the victims ombudsman. Where are they? I appreciate the fact that the member for London—Fanshawe works on issues dealing with women all the time, and I will stand beside her as she is working on those issues, because I think that when we see that women are being violated, we do stand together on these issues. Let us work together to get the government to do something.

105 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 7:31:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to pursue the point the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London put forward, I was very troubled by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision when it came down. The more I read the decision, the more I see that the court carefully differentiated mere drunkenness from this very specific extreme intoxication defence. That does not mean I am satisfied to leave the law as it is. We obviously cannot appeal this decision. It is a Supreme Court of Canada decision, but I agree with the member for Victoria and the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I would suggest that we all work together across party lines, recognizing that the Supreme Court of Canada itself has invited Parliament to legislate in this area in ways that would not offend the charter, to make sure that even in cases of extreme intoxication there is no loophole for violent crimes.

154 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Jun/7/22 7:33:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand where the member is coming from, because there is a line between where drunkenness ends and where extreme intoxications starts. That is the line we have to figure out. Right now there is no true definition. We know that there would need to be psychologists, psychiatrists and a variety of different people, so the threshold is high, but there needs to be something more defined. At this time, the Supreme Court of Canada has come back and said that legislators and members of Parliament need to fix this. That is our job, so we should be having those discussions and fixing that.

106 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:33:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her strong ongoing advocacy for victims. I wonder if she can comment on the government's overarching theme of being soft on crime. We see it in a number of ways, in different legislation that it brings forth and in how it approaches many different issues. I wonder if you can comment on how the government is not really standing up for victims of crime, but really having this soft-on-crime approach.

82 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 7:34:32 p.m.
Watch

Just as a reminder, it is the hon. member who is going to comment, not me. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

25 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Jun/7/22 7:34:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to that point, being soft on crime is exactly how I see this. We talk about the revolving door that we see in the courts. We talk about that all the time, and we continue to see it because there is loophole after loophole. That is where the government comes in. When it comes to criminal law and laws like this, we need to look at them and ask where the victim fits in. I have watched different court sessions. I recognize that, at the end of the day, the government wants to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences and so forth. I want to know how many victims' organizations are sitting at the table when the government is talking about that. I have sat with people who have gone to Parole Board hearings and who have been revictimized after the loss of a sister. I have spoken with these people. I ask the government to stand in their shoes for one day and imagine what it is like to lose a loved one, and then imagine having to withstand a government that is soft on crime.

189 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/7/22 7:35:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. I just got back from a short trip to Stockholm last week to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Summit in 1972. These summits on global environmental challenges are always very informative, but over the years they sometimes take on another tone. I have to say that the data is becoming quite worrisome. This year, in 2022, the call for urgent action was clearer than ever. The statistics and the evidence should be stirring us into action and motivating us to implement bold public policy that provides hope for the future. People say there is always someone who is worse off than we are, but based on what I saw in Sweden, I would venture that Canada might not even be able to say that. That is how badly off we are. In its most recent report, the IPCC highlighted the important, if not critical, role that municipalities play in combatting climate change. I would say that Stockholm recognized that well before—

192 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 7:37:01 p.m.
Watch

Order. I can hear a phone sounding an alarm and I would ask that it be turned off. The hon. member may continue.

23 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:37:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the city of Stockholm is at the forefront. I will not talk about the many praiseworthy elements of its urban planning, but, in short, it is a model city. Obviously, some will say that Sweden is a small country that does not face the same challenges as Canada. That is true. However, the real difference is that Sweden has the political will and courage to do things differently, with the common objective of meeting the collective imperatives. What are the current collective imperatives? The climate crisis and even the survival of humans. We must acknowledge this and take action to counter the declining biodiversity and the material threats represented by all climate events, such as violent winds, forest fires and the destruction of infrastructure. These events are reported every day in the newspapers. I have not forgotten about health. The World Health Organization just issued a new policy brief on the measures that countries must implement to address health issues related to climate change. This brief was released as Stockholm+50 ended. The WHO urges us to view health not just from the historical perspective of pollution and its links to cancer, but by also factoring in psychosocial well-being, anxiety, depression, persistent grief and suicidal behaviour. It is David versus Goliath. David is the millions of citizens who are worried about their future and their children's future. David also represents the organizations that are trying to knock some sense into politicians. Goliath is big oil, which is dominated by foreign interests and whose ambitions are being legitimized by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an influential third party, which is really worrisome. In December 2021, the Council of Canadians released a report analyzing the system that is in place. It revealed an industry sector that is holding the government hostage and keeping it captive through intensive lobbying. This is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The author of the study is an economist, author and university professor. He uncovered a significant issue: CAPP was allowed to register as a third-party advertiser in the 2019 federal election, letting it run ads and advocate on key issues. Third parties are allowed to spend up to $1 million in the pre-writ period and up to $500,000 during the election campaign. One would think we were in the United States. The Canada Elections Act prohibits a person or entity from making or publishing false statements during an election to affect election results. However, during the 2019 election, CAPP made two false statements on the Vote Energy platform website. In its first statement, it wrote that “Canada's only credible path to meeting its Paris commitments is through increased exports of Canadian natural gas”. It was implying that fossil fuels were actually going to help us. In the second statement, it called for Canada to “acknowledge that Canada's oil and natural gas sector is not subsidized”. As false statements go, I do not think it gets any worse than this second statement. We understand better now why the government cannot resolve the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. Obviously, hundreds of meetings in 12 months with ministers and other elected government officials produce results. How can we expect to make a real transition? We are even at the point where the Canada Elections Act would have to be amended in order to close another loophole. It seems to me that we have enough on our plates already. Let us not add to it, for goodness' sake. We learned recently, after the supplementary estimates (A) were released, that Canada's six largest banks have quietly provided $10 billion in financing for Trans Mountain. Canada's Department of Finance had repeatedly refused to reveal who was behind the huge loan for the controversial oil sands pipeline. Bloomberg, the largest supplier of financial data, has confirmed that all the Canadian banks are listed as lenders. With the guaranteed returns on a loan this big, the banks are getting a good deal. Everyone needs to understand something. Even if Trans Mountain does not pay back the full amount, the federal government's commitment means that the banks involved are in no danger of losing money. We will see why. When was that promise made? The deal with the banks was signed on April 29, the same day that the federal loan guarantee was approved by the Prime Minister's Office, as first reported by the news website Politico. The exact amount loaned by each bank is not disclosed, but if I divide the $10 billion by the number of banks, each bank would have loaned roughly $1.7 billion. Some observers have said that it was a formality. Why say such a thing? A $10‑billion loan coordinated between six banks is a complex agreement that would have taken months to prepare, which once again raises the problem of the lack of transparency. It seems like Export Development Canada's habit of not being transparent is starting to rub off on the Department of Finance. Trans Mountain is a Crown corporation. It is funded in part by taxpayers' money. It should therefore be a paragon of transparency, not opacity. The government wants to build a pipeline, but it does not have any credible arguments for doing so. The Minister of Finance said in February that no additional public money would be spent on that project and that the necessary funding would be secured through third-party financing, either in the public debt markets or with financial institutions. She failed to mention that the government would guarantee these arrangements. Again, Canada's account administered by Export Development Canada is the account fed by the public treasury, meaning our money. It is not like the Bloc Québécois has not talked about that account. We have not stopped talking about it. It takes some nerve to tell people stories like that. It is disgusting. It would be irrational not to be concerned about the current state of governance. If this were some kind of amazing, solid project that was a guaranteed money-maker and guaranteed to be safe for the climate while ensuring a future for our children and our health, I would bet anything that the government and Canadian banks would shout it from the rooftops, but no, this is all being done in secret. This project is an environmental death sentence that violates indigenous rights and compromises the global community's efforts to slow the climate crisis. It is a financial disaster. It is a carbon bomb being built through the mountains. It flies in the face of climate science. Nobody can be proud of this project. It is obvious why they are not exactly advertising it, so it should come as no surprise that the latest developments in this shameful saga are being hushed up. The arrangement shows how non-Canadian institutions feel about the financial prospects of the tar sands. It also speaks to the undue influence of the oil and gas industry, the loopholes in the Canada Elections Act, and finally, the consequences we will collectively face in the future. To attract private lenders such as the big Canadian banks, experts say the federal government is likely to have subordinated its own debt, which means that private sector investors will be paid first if the project is completed and generates revenue. If what the experts say proves to be true, if that really is the case, an investigation will be in order to shed some light on the decision-making process. However, the government is keeping mum. The Bloc Québécois has been systematically calling for an end to the support for Trans Mountain for a very long time. Are the Bloc members the only ones who are fed up with all the lies and double-talk?

1325 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 7:46:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny. I am happy she has returned safely from the major conference in Stockholm. I want to ask a question about our government's target, its major objective of achieving net zero by 2050. The IPCC says that achieving net zero by 2050 would be too late to protect our future. We must act immediately to reduce greenhouse gases before 2025. What does she think about the idea of achieving net zero by 2050?

81 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:47:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands. Indeed, we can see that 2050 is too late. In my speeches, I have always said that we need to protect the future for our children and grandchildren. We are beyond that point, however. We are in the thick of it now. The problems have already started. Everything that is in the atmosphere will continue to make temperatures rise. We need to act right now, and we need to do it fast. When I hear people elsewhere in the world who have brilliant ideas about how we can succeed in this mad race against time, I sometimes find myself thinking, “Dear God, if only Canada could get on board, it would have already made progress.” We need to move more quickly, but the political will does not seem to be there. I want to add one more thing. In 1972, at the Club of Rome, a predecessor to the IPCC, one Mr. Fuller said that Earth could be a paradise if all the politicians were sent to the moon. I have a couple of names to suggest for the next shuttle launch.

197 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Jun/7/22 7:48:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is correct in the sense that urgent action is needed to address the climate crisis. The IPCC, scientists and, more broadly, Canadians already know that. However, what we saw, as the member has mentioned, is the government and, more specifically, the Prime Minister decide to buy a pipeline, one that is actually not economical at that. They are being particularly secretive about the cost implications related to it. On top of that, they are not moving forward and taking real action to stop the subsidies for big oil. From that perspective, I would like to ask the member what she thinks the top priorities would be for the government to address the climate crisis?

119 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:49:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would say that there was a time when we could set priorities. Now, everything is a priority because the crisis is too serious. I feel that all countries worked together to tackle the health crisis quickly, but they are unable to do the same with this major climate crisis. We are losing living things. What is happening to biodiversity is shocking. The air we breathe is making us sick. The government is giving money to Trans Mountain and, as I explained in my speech, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is such a powerful lobby that it can hide the costs. We have yet to talk about Bay du Nord or the offshore drilling off the coast of Newfoundland. All the decisions being made seem to be completely contrary to what all international and Canadian experts are telling us.

149 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Jun/7/22 7:50:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the main estimates tonight. I am wondering if the hon. member has any specific thoughts on agriculture with regard to the main estimates. Looking at the agriculture sector, we know there are a lot of pressing issues right now in Canada having to do with production and the supply chain. I am wondering if the member is hearing any comments from her constituents on agriculture and how they might flow through the main estimates.

80 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Jun/7/22 7:51:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to agriculture, I cannot really speak to anything the people in my riding may have told me because it is not a primarily agricultural riding, even though there is some agriculture. However, at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we saw that funds were given to help farmers minimize their emissions. That is related to the main estimates. I will stop there.

68 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Jun/7/22 7:51:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are here this evening to debate the supplementary estimates for the 2022-23 fiscal year. As members know, budgets generally go up to March 31. That is usually how they work. My question is about the supplementary estimates or the budget. Since we are talking about the 2022-23 budget, I want to talk more specifically about budget 2022, which was presented in March. I think tonight is the perfect opportunity to talk about a subject that is near and dear to me, but that the government does not seem to care much about. This will become clearer in a moment. There was one short segment in the budget that the government presented not too long ago that might have been overlooked. A federal budget is several hundred pages long, and it is rare for someone to go through it line by line, word by word. It is easy to miss things. Obviously, as the transportation and infrastructure critic, my staff and I are more interested in those areas, so we dug a little deeper. We found that on page 79 of the budget it says: Budget 2022 signals the government’s intention to accelerate the deadline for provinces to fully commit their remaining funding under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program to priority projects to March 31, 2023. As a measure of fiscal prudence, any uncommitted funds after this date will be reallocated to other priorities. The federal government will work closely with provinces to support them in expediting project submissions. The next line says that the deadline remains unchanged for the territories. It is important to understand that the deadline was not 2023. It was moved up; it used to be later. In fact, the deadline was 2025. That is the whole problem. It is 2022 and the government is saying that all projects have to be submitted by 2023. We also have to understand what type of money and what type of projects we are talking about. The investing in Canada infrastructure program is a huge program. It has a $7.5‑billion envelope for the Quebec component alone. How much is left in the program right now? A bit more than $3.5 billion roughly has been allocated, so there is $4 billion left. In an election year, where all sorts of things may happen, where we might lose a month and there may be changes in government and ministers, people had 10 months to submit plans instead of the three years they should have had. Worse yet, it is not just the Government of Quebec submitting plans. The municipalities and towns of Quebec are doing so as well. Who will pay the price for these decisions at the end of the day? It is Quebec's towns. I mention this today because it has had significant and profound adverse effects, but it is more than that. When a government decides to change its agenda, we might say that is its right. It can do that and we can speak out against the resulting consequences, which is what I am doing right now. However, it goes further than that. An agreement was signed with the Quebec government in 2018, which essentially said that the end date was going to be 2025. There was a signed agreement in which the parties agreed on the amounts and the dates. When you have a signed agreement, you usually expect your partner on the other end to stick to it. Of course, when it comes to the federal government, it is a bit harder to know for sure whether one can rely on anything it agrees to, since it does have a bad track record in that regard. Many will remember, as I do, the famous 1980 referendum in which Trudeau senior said that voting “no” was a vote for change. I was not there in 1980 because I was not born yet, but I remember the images, and they come back to haunt me every time I see things like that happen. The infamous change was the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. This was not a very positive change for Quebec, which never signed it, not even to this day. Again in 1995, we were promised the world and what we got was the notorious sponsorship scandal and the equally notorious Clarity Act. That is the kind of reliable partner we can do without. On the subject of infrastructure specifically, I could talk about the national trade corridors fund, which gave us peanuts. I could talk about contracts for the Davie shipyard and how the government laughed in our faces and gave us next to nothing. The federal government seems to enjoy laughing at us and showing us who is boss. That is what we are seeing here. The problem is not just that the government wants to pretend it is the boss. The problem is that real people in real communities will be passed over. These are programs for green infrastructure, public transit and drinking water systems, which are huge issues for all the cities that need them. There is $4 billion up for grabs. Those people over there will say that cities still have a shot at those billions because they still have 10 months to submit something that takes three years to prepare. That means cities will be in a big rush and will put anything down in an effort to save as much as they can, but they are almost guaranteed to lose. It is sad to see a government acting that way. What is even sadder is that, in reading the agreement in detail, we realized that it contained something specific to Quebec. In Quebec, we do not necessarily like to be yes-men. Infrastructure and municipal affairs are not under federal jurisdiction. A total of 97% of the country's infrastructure belongs either to municipalities, provinces or Quebec. This means that the federal government owns roughly 3% of infrastructure, next to nothing, but it thinks it is the boss. The problem is that this government, which is notorious for thinking it is the boss, does not even uphold the agreements it signs. However, we need this money for our infrastructure. As I was saying, we took a look at the agreement to see the differences between Quebec and the other provinces, because we know that the federal government does not like it when Quebec does something different—that is practically criminal—because Quebec does not have the right or because it is dangerous. Quebec is not allowed to have its own identity. There are two sections in the 2018 agreement with Quebec, sections 3(a) and 3(b), under the heading “Commitments by Canada”, which are not in the other agreements. At the end, there are two short phrases noting that Canada would subsequently add phases to the program. There have indeed been several phases in the investing in Canada plan, but in the first phase, there was $342 million remaining in the amount allocated to Quebec. The sections I just mentioned state that the amounts not used in phase I will be able to be used in subsequent phases. This is worthwhile and very positive, because Quebec will not lose money and will be able to use this money to plan other projects. However, something happened at last Monday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Since we have a reliable partner that always keeps its word and never backs out of agreements, I asked the Minister of Transport what would happen to the money remaining from phase 1 and whether it would be transferred as set out in the agreement. The minister told us no, we would not see or get that money, and that the government would keep it, that it would be recovered by the receiver general of Canada. I was not impressed. I then asked myself if Canada plays these kinds of games when negotiating with other countries. Take for example an agreement with China, the United States, France, Germany or Japan, or a bilateral agreement with another country. Will the Canadian government renege on this agreement a few weeks later? If so, do members think that the other country would be happy about it? Obviously not, and Quebec is also not happy today. I am wondering if Canada generally honours its agreements. I am guessing it does, and I am guessing that the only reason it is not honouring this agreement is that Quebec is not a country. It is that simple. We are not a country, and the government knows that ultimately, there will be no consequences. It can do whatever it wants, and it knows that its word is worth absolutely nothing. That is disappointing. Quebec is set to lose hundreds of millions of dollars because of the arrogance of this government, a government that we cannot trust, that could not care less about Quebec and that only wants to be in charge and impose its own laws. That is completely unacceptable. That is what we are fighting against, and we are really going to ensure that we hold the government to account on that. I find this so unacceptable that we passed a motion in committee this week to once again summon the minister to explain why Canada is not living up to its bilateral agreements. The government has not upheld its agreement with Quebec, but the other provinces are also suffering because their bilateral agreements have not been upheld either. Quebec is not the only one being disrespected; all the Canadian provinces are, through the decisions that the government makes. However, the biggest difference is that it is Quebec that is being punished the most. Quebec believed the government opposite. Perhaps we were naive to believe that we could trust the Liberals and trust the Canadian government. I am not sure if I any time left, but I think I have said basically everything I wanted to say.

1685 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/7/22 8:01:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the intervention by the member today and I find it quite fascinating that previous Bloc MPs have risen and said that we are not moving fast enough with various things, in particular in relation to green infrastructure. The Infrastructure Bank is funding so many of these projects. We just have to go online to see that, but the member is now complaining that municipalities and the provinces are asked to submit their plans and their applications for 10 months from now. I was a mayor of a city and a city councillor and I know very well that if a municipality has a project on the go or is interested, 10 months is more than long enough to get council approval to proceed with an application and put together the basic framework for an application to submit. I am curious if the member can comment on one or two municipalities that he knows for which 10 months would not be long enough to put together a plan for that application.

175 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Jun/7/22 8:03:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, imagine a person has three years left to pay off their mortgage and the bank calls them up one morning to say that they actually have only 10 months. Imagine a person has a three-year contract with their employer, and, one random morning a year later, that person goes to work and their boss says that their contract will end in 10 months. I am not sure anyone would be happy to hear that. Usually, when people have a contract, they respect it. That is what we expect from the government. The most frustrating part of all this is that the government across the way is not respecting its own signature. It is meaningless. The government seems to think of itself as a supreme being that owes nothing to anyone. It is so frustrating. I hope that Canadians, especially Quebeckers, will remember this the next time they go to the polls.

154 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 8:03:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his speech. We sat beside one another in the previous Parliament. I would like to hear his comments on the fact that budget 2022 completely overlooks the importance of having an intercity transportation service. For example, here in British Columbia, we lost the bus system and the same is true in the Maritimes. I do not think it is as big of a problem in Quebec. What does he think of the fact that the federal government has ignored the needs of citizens in more remote regions?

105 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Jun/7/22 8:05:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very relevant question. It gives me a chance to add to what I said earlier. I talked about the fact that the government basically stole $342 million from Quebec by deciding not to give it the money it should have received under the agreement. Of that $342 million, $293 million was supposed to be spent on public transit, so Quebec has lost out on $293 million for public transit because of a unilateral decision by the government opposite. There is a lot to be angry about.

103 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83