SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Oct/20/22 11:00:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows I have respect for him, but the reality is he asked a question about corporate contribution to broader policy objectives and then also CEO pay. If the member opposite thinks we should increase taxation on high-income Canadians, I am happy to have that conversation in a debate in this chamber. As it relates to oil and gas companies themselves, we are trying to incentivize them to make important investments to reduce the carbon intensity associated with their products, such that the Canadian oil and gas sector will have a future in 2050 for the smaller market that is going to exist globally. It is important for Canada's competitiveness in this space to be able to reduce our emissions intensity. We are trying to incentivize the oil and gas companies to make that investment, similar to the $25 billion that was done just this past week.

153 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 11:01:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to speak today, because we are talking about two issues that are so important to Canadians right across our country. These issues are affordability and climate change. The fact is that our country is warming at twice the global average. The north is warming three times as fast. We are feeling the impacts of climate change right across this country. It is something that impacts people on a very personal level, as it impacts their homes and their livelihoods. It is also something that impacts our economy if we do not position ourselves to be the leader that we can be and that we are working to be right now, a leader in a low-carbon economy. That is where the world of opportunity lies for us: averting natural disasters and building a strong economy. That is what we are doing. Along with that, we are building sustainable jobs for the future. That is why we need to invest and make sure we continue to work toward that low-carbon economy. That is where the sustainable jobs, the ones that will be there for generations to come, will be. The issue is that for a country of 36 million people, Canada is a significant emitter of greenhouse gases. To fight climate change, to be competitive economically, like I have mentioned, we need to take action on climate change across all sectors of our economy, and we have to do it in a way that is fair and affordable for Canadians. Scientific evidence shows that human-induced climate change has already had widespread and adverse effects. We have seen that in our country. We have seen it with floods, we have seen it with droughts and we have seen it with heat domes. All of these are having impacts right now, right across our country, yet Conservative politicians have been fighting climate action for years. That is literally why we face increased costs in cleanup from all of those disasters that I am talking about. In fact, wildfires right now in B.C. are creating all sorts of havoc. Those are only going to increase if we do not take action now. That is why we are committed to doing it. As climate impacts intensify, it is all the more important and it is all the more obvious why we have to move to a clean net-zero emissions economy, to protect Canadians and the prosperity of Canadians going forward. I am going to keep repeating that point, because with Conservatives bringing this motion, I think it is very important that they recognize that this is not just about environment and climate change. It absolutely is, but it is also about our economic future. It is about the sustainable jobs in all of our communities; good paying ones. Those are our opportunities and those are what we are trying to protect and create. In recognition of these scientific and economic imperatives, Canada has set ambitious climate targets. In 2021, Canada enhanced its 2030 nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels. The government also committed to achieving net zero by 2050, and last June, Canada passed the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The purpose of the act is to increase transparency and accountability as Canada works towards net-zero emissions by 2050. The emissions reductions plan, which I may refer to as the ERP sometimes, just because it is faster and easier to do that, is about achieving incremental GHG emissions to reach Canada's 2030 targets. It is about putting in place foundational measures to ensure not only that Canada's future is carbon neutral, but also that energy alternatives are more affordable and create sustainable job opportunities for workers. Now, the Conservatives who have brought this motion today can pretend that they have been on the side of fighting energy poverty, but Canadians have been riding this roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years and Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins for oil and gas producers. The only way we are actually going to eliminate energy poverty and reduce household energy costs is by having true energy security by fighting climate change and making sure we are helping Canadians to get there, that we are helping Canadians to make the retrofits and to take advantage of energy-efficient measures right across the country. That is what the emissions reductions plan is there to do. It has a suite of mitigation measures based on the foundation of the 2016 pan-Canadian framework and the 2020 strengthened climate plan, considering the best available science, indigenous knowledge and the advice of the net-zero advisory body. It is about listening to the experts across all sectors, to make sure we get this right. Achieving Canada's climate objectives will be a whole-of-economy and a whole-of-society effort. When I talk about this, we are going to talk a bit more about the ERP. It includes new federal investments and supports across all sectors. When we are talking about these economy-wide measures, it includes one of the issues that has been raised today, the price on carbon pollution across the country, which is one of the cornerstones of Canada's economy-wide measures. It is a market mechanism. That is why I always find it so fascinating when I hear Conservatives argue against carbon pricing. It is, in fact, a market mechanism. I am not sure why a party that says it supports market measures would be opposed to us doing exactly that: putting in a piece that works with the market on this. Let me take it one step further. The part that is important about the federal climate action, our pricing of carbon pollution, is that in a backstop province, the money goes back to the people in that community. For example, people in a backstop province, like mine in Ontario, actually, just last week, got a climate action incentive payment back. None of this stays with the federal government. Not a penny of it stays with the federal government. It goes back to the province where it was collected, and it goes back to the individuals who were paying it. That is very important, because I think that point gets lost sometimes in this debate. I want to highlight that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, when looking at this, said not only, as we say all the time, that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back in this system than they paid, but also something else that I find very important, which is that the people who are not getting as much back tend to be the people with the most disposable income. That was the other thing the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. I think this is important when we are talking about affordability. We are talking about the fact that actually, the way the climate action incentive works, more money is paid back. Basically, when we look at it the way the Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at it, people with the greatest need actually get more back, on average, when we look at the system. I wanted to talk about some of the other measures in the ERP as we are going through it, and I am sorry that I jumped around a bit, but I get passionate about this issue because I care deeply about it. The ERP is recapitalizing the low-carbon economy fund. The investment includes the creation of a new indigenous leadership fund to support clean energy and energy-efficiency projects led by first nations, Métis and Inuit communities and organizations. As for our buildings, we never talk about the building sector enough in this place, but in the city of Toronto, which is my home city, buildings are our largest sources of emissions. We are going to have to tackle that. That is why we are developing a “net zero by 2050” building strategy to support the massive retrofit of the building stock needed to reach our climate targets. It also means putting in place contributions and loan funding to support the low-income stream of the greener homes grant program. I know that in my home city, and I hear about it when I am talking with people in other places as well, people are benefiting from this to make their homes more energy-efficient. There is also funding to support deep retrofits of large buildings. This was actually support for community housing, social housing, in cities and other locations receiving supports through this kind of a program. The other part that is really important is that just recently we announced funding to help people move from oil to heat pumps. That is funding that will support, in large part, homes in Atlantic Canada, but it is targeted to people with lower incomes. We recognize that affordability is a top issue for Canadians. Right now, it is a hard time around the world. It is a hard time for Canadians. That is why we are here to work for them. At the same time, we are not going to lose sight of the need to take action on climate change.

1558 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Oct/20/22 11:12:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's intervention on the opposition day motion, it seems to me she is having a “let them eat cake” moment. She did not really speak to the motion, which is that the government's policies are creating massive inflation that is causing people in my community and my province to have to choose between heating and eating. If members do not know what heating from oil looks like, they can look at my visual here. It costs more than $1,000 now to fill an oil tank. It has gone up 52% since the summer, and over 53% of Nova Scotians heat this way. Could the parliamentary secretary actually address the issue of the day, which is why she and her government will not give a break on home heating taxes so people in my province do not have to choose between heating and eating?

153 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 11:13:07 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member that, while we prefer a neutral background, he can be wherever he wants to be. However, when putting a point across, he cannot refer to what is in the background. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

40 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Oct/20/22 11:13:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did talk about the fact that affordability is a key issue for Canadians right now. Inflation around the world is very high, and Canada is below many of the other countries. We are seeing a slight decrease, but inflation is absolutely a top issue. That is why we are putting in extra supports to help Canadians. We are doing that with doubling the GST credit. We are trying to do that now with dental care and rental supports, and I am hoping that on those pieces, the Conservatives are going to stand up to help. My question for the member opposite is whether he is going to help support people in his community by voting for the rental supports and dental care, so his constituents could take advantage of those programs.

134 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/20/22 11:14:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean asked a Conservative member a question after his speech. He asked him whether the Conservative Party and he himself were going to denounce and condemn the enormous profits generated by oil and gas companies. I would like to ask my colleague across the aisle the same question. Does the government intend to denounce and condemn the enormous and indecent profits generated by oil and gas companies? If so, what does he intend to do to correct the situation?

89 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Oct/20/22 11:15:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked me this question. There is something we do not often talk about here: the fact that there is a fee system in place and that energy companies pay fees. They pay them in their province. It is not true that, when they make more profits, they do not pay more fees. They do. I think that it is also important to note our government's move to impose higher taxes on banks and companies. We are thinking about that, but our attention is always focused on how we can help Canadians. That is what we do every day, in particular with our bills aimed at giving them tax credits and offering dental care support.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Oct/20/22 11:16:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, people need help now. One of the things she said that was really concerning was about buildings. I agree with her that we need to retrofit buildings to help mitigate the climate crisis, but we also need to help people now. She gave the date of 2050, but people need help right now. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary will support the NDP, which is the only party willing to state it, in going after CEOs and big oil companies to get them to pay their share so we can pay for retrofits now. Families need help now.

101 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Oct/20/22 11:17:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are working on a green building strategy that would provide supports to Canadians right now as some first steps, and we are going to continue to build on that. Environment Canada announced a program that will help Canadians who have lower incomes to retrofit their homes from oil heating to heat pumps. There is a greener homes grant, as well as other programs. In fact, other programs are being delivered not directly through the federal government but through cities, and I would be happy to work with the member opposite on more of that.

97 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Oct/20/22 11:17:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. Today's motion is yet another attempt by the Conservatives to address a real problem that is of great concern to our fellow Canadians, inflation, through solutions that are not. The Conservatives are very good at proposing false solutions by promising that they will relieve the public of inflation. On their last opposition day, they outright proposed suspending the carbon tax. That proposal would not help Canadians deal with a global inflation issue. In proposing to suspend the carbon tax, they are trying to help a single sector, oil and gas. Meanwhile, the recent spike in the price of crude has greatly benefited oil companies. The Conservatives use the problem of inflation, witch affects all consumer goods and has repercussions on all households, to achieve a single goal, that of discrediting the polluter pays principle and eliminating the carbon tax. As soon as the Conservatives see an opportunity, they try to seize it, always for the same goal, to eliminate the tax on pollution. It was disheartening to see that the Conservative motion introduced on a recent opposition day distorted the results of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis. Let us make one thing perfectly clear right off the bat: The tax is not currently causing a loss for 60% of households. Today's motion quotes the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and alludes to a total increase of 80%. However, that increase is for 2030, not for right now. By that time, our behaviours will have changed, evolved and progressed, and the economy will be more stable. In addition, the tax is still progressive because of the rebate. Low-income families will see a net gain. The fact is that four out of five Canadians will receive more money than they will have paid in carbon tax. Maybe the reason the official opposition is proposing this is that the real solutions are more complex and require some thought about how to create wealth while respecting the environment, and especially about how to share that wealth. Most of the Conservatives' solutions would deprive the government of revenue. It is taxpayers' money, the people's money, that we are managing. At the end of the day, the Conservative motion will not give people a stable increase in income, force companies to pay their fair share of taxes, or make banks and multinational corporations pocket less money. One of the Bloc Québécois's goals is to ensure that multinational corporations pay their fair share. We do not deny the fact that inflation is real, rampant and widespread, affecting every sector, including housing, food and transportation. These times require more comprehensive measures than today's populist motion. Rather than looking for positive solutions for the months and years to come, the Conservatives are taking advantage of Halloween and trying to frighten people. On September 7, the Bank of Canada increased its key rate for a fifth time, to 3.25%. For consumers, we know that this new key rate increase will result in higher interest and mortgage rates. At the same time, wages are catching up to inflation, a sign that the labour shortage is increasingly forcing employers to loosen the purse strings. We are seeing that some of them can afford to pay their employees higher wages. It was mid-September before the Liberal government decided to actually talk about inflation. There was nothing concrete in the budget last spring to address the main concern of Canadians, nor was there anything new in the Deputy Prime Minister's speech on June 16 before the Empire Club on Bay Street in Toronto. On September 13, the government came back to earth and announced an increase in the GST credit, doubling it for six months. Better late than never. The government also announced that it would pay $500 in support to less affluent renters. Inflation related to COVID‑19 revealed weaknesses in the economy that must be corrected. The current inflation is largely caused by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine and many imbalances in supply and demand are cyclical. I will name just a few: demand going up and down, with very strong recovery following the lockdowns; changes in consumer behaviour to which production is struggling to adjust; production interrupted by outbreaks; dysfunction in the global supply chain, and more. The global supply chain is struggling to adjust and, in many cases, regional outbreaks and lockdowns have amplified the problem by interrupting production. These events alone reveal the weaknesses of our commercial systems, their failings. When the links of a supply chain are completely relocated and there are lockdowns and slowdowns in production, repercussions will be unavoidable. Families now need to make sacrifices at the grocery store. Some of these causes are environmental. Yes, there are supply issues associated with COVID‑19 that have piled on to an already fragile situation, but there are also droughts and fires that have led to poor harvests in western Canada and the southern United States, driving up prices. Heatwaves lead to major agricultural losses, threats to aquatic life, water shortages, fires and, as a result, larger grocery bills and a decrease in river trade. All this is attributable to the climate crisis and, of course, the war in Ukraine. All the conditions have been in place for several months for energy costs to explode around the world. Demand had fallen before the pandemic, driving prices down. The current increase is a form of catch-up, but oil prices are chronically unstable. There is a lot of speculation about oil prices, which causes endless crises. The best way to prevent this is to reduce our dependence on oil and gas. Quebec is not currently subject to the federal carbon tax, in effect since April 1, 2019, because Quebec was proactive and imposed a form of price on pollution by taking part in the carbon market with California. As a result, Quebec is not affected by the Conservative motion and, let us be clear, no new federal tax will apply to heating invoices for Quebec households. However, that has not prevented thousands of citizens from reflecting on their dependence on oil and gas. I would like to talk about Ms. Thériault in the Eastern Townships, who is lucky to be in good health at the age of 92. She lives at home, never owned a car, always got around by public transit and decided six years ago to remove the heating oil tank from her property. In doing so, she saved money. In less than two years, the cost of the transition was covered. The savings are enormous. No more dependence on the oil market. I will say it again. I know that it will probably make some colleagues sick and that their skin may crawl a bit, but we need to work to get away from oil. Why? Because climate change is the greatest threat to our lives. The government must encourage the transformation of heating systems in businesses and private residences. François Delorme, a professor of economics at the University of Montreal, said, “The harms of pollution in terms of public health and respiratory diseases have been well established. There is a public cost to our private decisions to use gasoline.... No one likes paying taxes, but people need to understand that this particular tax funds public services and renewable energy.” By taxing gasoline, we obtain resources to encourage people to turn to greener solutions. In 2019, studies already showed that a carbon tax similar to Canada's had allowed some European countries to increase the size of the economy and the number of jobs. That contradicts a number of preconceptions. The purpose of this tax is to influence people's behaviour. With gas prices rising, we want to see a reduction in consumption, just like for junk food or tobacco. That is what Mr. Delorme reminds us of. Ms. Thériault lives in Quebec and, for her, simply seeing the heating oil bill go up pushed her to act. Right now, the Bloc Québécois is proposing real solutions to relieve the main victims of inflation. It is proposing long-term solutions: increase old age security to maintain the purchasing power of seniors, offer financial support to people on low incomes, implement programs to support those most affected by sudden price increases. I know my colleagues will give other examples as well. It is possible to make the economy more resilient if the structural weaknesses that cause inflation are addressed. To that end, we need to reduce dependency on oil and gas, address the labour shortage, encourage more local production, and begin major construction, particularly for social housing. If the members truly want the government to help Canadians, we encourage them to approve the solutions put forward by the Bloc Québécois. These are more equitable solutions that would in turn best distribute wealth. Let us set aside the demagoguery and avoid misleading the public with false truths. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but certainly not to their own facts.

1559 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 11:28:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, back in 2015, governments all around the world went to Paris, where an agreement about climate action was achieved. At the time, the idea and the principles of a price on pollution were widely accepted throughout the world. Even here in Canada they were widely accepted. Today, when I reflect on how important it is to recognize the principles of a price on pollution, I see them as really good, not only for our local communities and our nation, but for the world as a whole. However, we have the official opposition party here in Canada reversing its position from the last election, saying it no longer supports the principles of a price on pollution. Could the member provide her thoughts on how that statement has a profound impact here?

132 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/20/22 11:29:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, personally, I would like the Conservative opposition, and this is not the first time I am appealing to its members, to join the 21st century. We cannot keep doing what we have always done, because we know the damage it causes to our health, to the public and to biodiversity. I am appealing to the Conservatives yet again to join the 21st century and move forward to ensure that the people, but especially the businesses, who pollute are finally taxed under a polluter pay system, starting with businesses.

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Oct/20/22 11:30:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my home region is very rural. What would my colleague say to a family father or mother who needs to travel every day? There is no public transit for people to get to work, or go the grocery store or attend activities with their children. What would she say, in light of the increased costs associated with the current taxes?

62 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/20/22 11:30:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, no one has any power over transportation and the price of oil. It is decided in London and New York, and it fluctuates up and down. There was even a book published to try to explain oil speculation. No one can understand it. On that point, the price of oil is not up to us and it is out of our control. That being said, the Bloc Québécois has solutions. I talked about a few earlier. For example, the government needs to increase old age security to preserve seniors' purchasing power. That would also enable them to get around. We need to give direct financial support to people with low incomes and provide a support program for those who are most affected by the sudden increase in gas prices, namely farmers, taxi drivers and truckers. The Bloc Québécois came up with all of these solutions because it has a more long-term vision.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/20/22 11:31:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have so much respect for my colleague. I work with her on the all-party climate caucus. One thing the Conservatives do not want to talk about is the record profits of the bank industry, of grocery chains and of oil and gas. To interpret that for the Conservatives, it is called triple, triple, triple greed. That is just to help them understand what I am talking about. I am going to talk about the motion. I agree with the member that the polluter pay model is absolutely critical for tackling climate change, but maybe we can relieve some pressure on Canadians by removing the GST portion on home heating. Would my colleague agree that this is a good step forward to help people tackle the pressures they are under right now with inflation?

137 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/20/22 11:32:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, that does not affect Quebec. Our heating costs are not going to increase, because we have a carbon exchange. There is something else or another element that could be relevant, and that is energy efficiency. In Quebec, we have Hydro‑Québec's innovative projects program to develop high-performance energy-efficient real estate projects. That is another way to move away from oil. We also have the energy transition master plan, which will make $12.7 billion in investments by 2026 to help people transition away from oil. Those are some solutions we could think about when looking to the future.

113 words

All Topics

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

Oct/20/22 11:33:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, long-time members are used to seeing the parties, when tabling bills or presenting motions on opposition day, do a sort of brief reading as a preview, to give an idea what it will be about. Unfortunately, when I looked at the motion today, I thought that the Conservatives had to know that a lot of members tend to do that. The motion lists all kinds of things that are much like half-truths. They thought people would repeat all of them, one after the other, and would present the information. I may be wrong, but this time, for that reason, I will not do that. In fact, I find it unfortunate that the facts are being somewhat twisted and situations exaggerated. I am not saying that no one is having problems with the cost of heating. Mainly, what I find is that the Conservative Party seems to be increasingly interested in blowing things out of proportion. Instead of wanting to debate substantive issues, they want to find anecdotal topics. Another thing I deplore is that the Conservatives constantly revisit the same topics. It seems like every question period is the same. That is pretty much the case today. Every time we have an opposition day we feel we have gone through it before. In 2022, the Conservatives are still stuck in the same place. Maybe they will evolve in 2023. I hope so for their sake. I think the debate is about the last part of the motion, not the long preamble that might take half my speaking time to read. The motion asks that “the House express its agreement with the comments of the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and call on the government to exempt all forms of home heating fuel from the carbon tax for all Canadians.” Here, in the wording of the motion—and this is just the last little bit—things are being twisted a bit. We can see that the Conservatives are using the fact that the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote to the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada as a confrontational tool. It is not the worst we have seen, but I would say it is not exactly a very subtle tactic. A little further into the motion, there is a mention of an exemption for home heating fuel. We understand that, when Conservatives talk about “home heating” and “carbon tax”, they are talking about heating oil and gas. As we know, there are Conservatives who defend one industry, and that can only be the oil and gas industry. This is what really needs to be understood from the motion. The Conservatives have found another way to put forward a proposal to support the fossil fuel industry, the oil industry, which, unfortunately, is effectively an industry of the past. It seems that the Conservatives just cannot wrap their heads around that. That is sad, because they seem to be obsessed with oil and gas. It seems like that is all they can think about when they get up in the morning. I think that they put oil in their coffee and have lunch and dinner with oil; I do not know. It really seems to be an obsession. I was elected in 2015, seven years ago, and I cannot remember a single question period when there were no questions from the Conservatives about oil. I think that is their only topic. For example, take the war in Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine. As a solution, the Conservatives began saying more oil was needed. Right now, there is an inflationary crisis and the Conservatives are trying to find ways to say that we need more oil. When we have a recession, because a lot of economists are predicting a recession—hopefully it will not be too severe—I am convinced that their solution will still be more oil. Earlier, I said that it seemed like the Conservatives eat oil, but unfortunately, most of us breathe it. We breathe the fumes from these fossil fuels in our daily lives. Because the climate is also affected, the entire planet is grappling with global warming. We do not hear much from the Conservatives on that. It would be interesting to hear them talk more about it, because it has a real impact on people’s lives. This costs billions of dollars. True, when we pay our bills at the end of the month or receive our paycheque, we never see anything saying “climate bill”, unfortunately. Maybe we should find ways to say it more so it will be clearer. Maybe that would help the Conservatives understand that this phenomenon really exists and has a real cost for our society. When there are people with respiratory issues, I do not think it is a good idea to put more money into the oil and gas industry and encourage it even more. When there are species going extinct and our biodiversity is threatened, I do not think it is a good idea to cut down more trees and smother nature. I have not been to Alberta yet, but I am really looking forward to going there one day. However, I have seen pictures and news reports, and it did not look like very joyful. I wonder what we will have to do in the future to fix all the damage and clean up the mess that has been created there. For example, bodies of water that are used for drinking water have become completely toxic and are now off-limits to the public. That really worries me. Animals are being poisoned by that water. The contamination will also end up in the water table, and people will be poisoned. When the green transition is complete, there will still be problems from the past to deal with. I wish the Conservatives would offer up solutions and proposals that are look forward, not backward. For example, they often say we need to find a way for people to have more money in their pockets in the short term. However, the Conservatives' solutions for achieving that always revolve around encouraging dirty industries. Could they come up with suggestions that involve funding or supporting clean industries instead? That would be nice. We would be more open to listening to proposals like that. As members know, in Quebec, we rely heavily on hydroelectricity and increasingly on wind energy. We are also looking at other modes of energy production, but we are trying to avoid fossil fuels as much as possible. The Conservative motion mentions the Premier of Newfoundland. Historically, we have seen Newfoundland take legal action and start feuds with Quebec to prevent us from fully executing our projects. For example, rather than use Hydro-Québec's lines, they demand a line funded by the federal government. Then they end up on the brink of bankruptcy with their projects, instead of trying to collaborate with us. It is sad. It is sad, considering that there are solutions out there. For instance, we have electricity that we could supply to people in other parts of the world. It is very likely that we will be supplying electricity to the United States. We already do, but we will supply more. We supply some to Ontario, but perhaps we would like to supply more. The Conservatives do not talk about it, but the Ontario premier who is showing less and less appetite for Quebec hydroelectricity is not a Liberal. He is a Conservative. That is sad, because hydroelectricity is a much greener solution than oil and gas. It might be worth looking into solutions like these, where Quebec could play a role and maybe even help the Canadian provinces decarbonize. Would that not be amazing? Quebec could help the other provinces and the planet, instead of watching the constant push toward gas, oil and the oil sands that will end up poisoning us all. I do not think the Conservatives' solution is the right one. I also have not heard the Conservatives talk about the increases in gas prices. They are talking about possible tax hikes, but those hikes do not exist in Quebec. Gas prices are going up because the oil companies are lining their pockets. The Conservatives have never suggested investigating the oil companies, their profits, or the oil cartel that is going on. Unfortunately, we should really be asking why all prices are going up at the same time everywhere. Why is no one able to explain the relationship between the price at the pumps, the price of extraction and international phenomena? What we often see is that prices go up at Christmas. They go up at the start of vacation season. Sometimes, prices go up on Monday mornings too, and there is no good reason for that either. All of this is to say that it would be nice to see the Conservatives come up with some useful, meaningful ideas, instead of backward-looking suggestions. In closing, we see that the Liberals seem inclined to support them. Countries often base their policies on their interests, and unfortunately, Canada is an oil-producing country.

1540 words

All Topics

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

Oct/20/22 11:43:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right, Quebec has, quite frankly, led the way when it comes to clean energy. Ontario, Quebec and California signed on to the first cap-and-trade deal. It is extremely unfortunate that the first thing a Conservative premier did in Ontario when he was elected was to bail on that agreement. However, what we have seen in the last four and a half years since that happened is that Quebec has continued to innovate and look at more creative ways to deliver and provide electricity, while Ontario has literally been stagnant for the last four years. We see the results in the electrification of the EV grid in Quebec, for example, which is light years ahead of Ontario. Could the member provide further examples of how Quebec could demonstrate to the rest of the province how to produce electricity and share that technology throughout our country?

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Oct/20/22 11:44:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to add a few things to what my colleague opposite has just said. I think he made a comment rather than ask a question, but I am pleased with what he said. In my view, it is not enough to say that we have to turn to the future, we also have to be enthusiastic about it. Often, when we take the initiative and choose to engage collectively in a promising project, people lift their head, smile and want to be involved. When that dynamic is created, it increases the desire to create that change. On the other hand, when the members from the Conservative Party continue to encourage frustrations and an outdated view of things, they unfortunately reduce the possibility of looking to the future and create resistance to what needs to be done anyway. It is sad, because there is no enthusiasm and, instead of being economic precursors and winners, we run even more risk of being losers.

165 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Oct/20/22 11:45:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am concerned because the member seems to be really out of touch with reality. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry in Canada has invested $48 billion in public services in Canada. The members seems to not want to talk about one fact related to inflation. The two main causes of inflation are labour and energy. In my opinion, the member seems to agree that the cost of living is rising because of this government's desire to increase the tax on energy. Does he support the government's decision to increase the cost of living for Canadians?

104 words

All Topics