SoVote

Dec/7/23 11:24:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was having a very quiet conversation with my colleague who is sitting right beside me here. I was in no way trying to talk at that member. He—

39 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:24:26 a.m.
Watch

As I said, I do not know which comments came from whom. If individuals want to have conversations they should take them outside.

23 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Dec/7/23 11:24:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Through you to our hon. colleague, I would say that the conversation that is taking place at the Speaker's chair is indeed louder. It is not offending me, but it is indeed louder than the one that our colleague is being called out for—

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:25:04 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member that I did not indicate who was making the noise, because I really did not know who it was. However, I will certainly make sure that my conversations here are quiet as well. The point is well taken. The hon. member for Jonquière.

51 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Dec/7/23 11:25:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not even have to show the House what I am talking about, because the Conservatives are doing it for me. They use this same tactic day after day at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Earlier, I heard a Conservative say that he was just having a nice, quiet discussion with one of his colleagues. If members want to know what Conservatives think is a quiet discussion, they should have a look at the video of our meeting yesterday at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. They will see what my Conservative colleagues consider a nice, quiet discussion. As I was saying before I was interrupted, the member for Brantford—Brant behaved in a highly questionable way. He tried to intimidate the Bloc Québécois whip and the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to prevent them from speaking to a bill. As I was saying earlier, we have been dealing with this type of behaviour in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for more than a month now. We are never sure whose turn it is to speak, which is frankly ridiculous. When I put all that together, I see what I call the “Carleton method”. It is the approach used by the leader of the official opposition, and it is based on two major but very simple strategies: on the one hand, we have intimidation and, on the other, disinformation. As I said in my introduction, we are now at a turning point. In the face of climate change, the actions that we should take immediately will have an irreversible impact on future generations. When political parties use intimidation and disinformation in this kind of context, the only outcome is disaster. What I am trying to do this morning is to appeal to the sense of responsibility of each and every parliamentarian. Every parliamentarian should perhaps look beyond the end of their nose and beyond the next election. They should think about their children and future generations. Unfortunately, more and more members have become extremely short-sighted, behaving like lobbyists for the oil and gas sector and refusing to listen to science, which is clearly showing us that climate change will have harmful effects on us. There are members who behave that way, who do not have the will or the integrity to tackle the problem before us head on, and who prefer to use intimidation and disinformation. I can think of a number of examples. One of the focuses of today's debate is Bill C‑234. We saw an intimidation campaign by Conservative senators against two of their colleagues, Bernadette Clement and Chantal Petitclerc. Worse yet, I can say that I saw on the Conservatives' monitor in the lobby a photo of the two senators as if on wanted posters. We sometimes see wanted posters for criminals. The goal was of course to post these images on social media to instigate an intimidation campaign against the senators in question. We all know how social media works. As I was saying earlier, that is the member for Carleton's method. Not so long ago, we were alerted to what the member for Carleton was capable of. The people who warned us about how the member for Carleton operates were also members from Quebec, in particular the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. He indicated a number of times that he had never seen a more hateful campaign than the one he was the victim of in his own riding. People took it upon themselves to incite the public to call him and intimidate him. As we know, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska is a former Conservative member. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier also warned us. I will quote him, and it is a quote that applies perfectly to what I witnessed yesterday in committee. Here is what he said about the last Conservative leadership race: “I have never seen such an aggressive race or such vicious personal attacks”. Well, to borrow the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier's own words, I have never seen such aggressive and vicious discussions and such savage personal attacks as I witnessed yesterday in committee. This method in no way helps solve the problem before us, namely the climate crisis. The Conservatives often use empty slogans like “Axe the tax”. I see it everywhere. Upon closer inspection, however, through all the rhetoric, what the Conservatives really mean is “Axe the facts”. What they are trying to do is gloss over all the scientific data that show that we need to adopt robust measures to fight climate change to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I have never seen a Conservative proposal to introduce carbon pricing. I have never seen the Conservative Party recognize that carbon pricing is necessary if we want to transition to a low-carbon economy. The only one who ever defended that was the former leader of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, a few members, probably from his own party, managed to get their way. There is something else I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention. I said earlier that, in my opinion, responsible elected members use reason rather than force. That is a guiding principle of democracy, which the Conservatives do not appear to respect, preferring intimidation and disinformation. There is another principle that is quite important. I believe that we were elected to defend our constituents' interests. That is critical. Every one of us must defend our constituents' interests in this House. Here is where my bewilderment stems from. I have a colleague in this House who comes from my region. My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is a Conservative member from the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean region. He rose in the House to ask the government to expedite the legislative process in the Senate regarding Bill C-234, which is about reducing the tax on the fuels used for grain drying. It is linked to the carbon tax. Once again, as all members from my party keep saying, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Yet, the president of the federation Les Producteurs de lait du Québec is in the riding of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. He has been working tirelessly for three years with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to have a bill passed that would stop any further breaches in supply management. This bill was passed here, in the House. It is now before the Senate. I do not want to impute motives to anyone, but we are told that Conservative senators are delaying the passage of the bill. I cannot believe that a member from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area who counts the president of Les Producteurs de lait du Québec among his constituents would rise in the House to defend a bill that will have no effect on his fellow citizens or on Quebec politics, but remains silent what it comes to supply management. That is a fundamental violation. Today I challenge the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to stand up in the House and ask a question or make a statement in support of the supply management bill. That is another issue. We heard the leader of the official opposition tell us at length that in the next election campaign, the “ballot box issue” will be carbon pricing, that is the carbon tax. We will say it again: That tax does not apply in Quebec. Clean fuel pricing already exists in Quebec; it was implemented by the Quebec government itself. I cannot understand how Conservative MPs from Quebec can support such far-fetched initiatives. These initiatives will have no impact in Quebec. Today, I have a request for my colleagues from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, also a Quebecker, and Louis-Saint-Laurent. I have always held the latter in high esteem. He had a career in the media and was also, at one time, a distinguished politician. I ask them to become responsible again, to set aside the Carleton method that is becoming increasingly common and to take an interest in Quebec. The people of Quebec will repay them in kind. Federal MPs from Quebec have to advance the interests of Quebec society here in the House. My sense is that, somewhere along the way, my Conservative colleagues from Quebec clearly lost their political bearings. I will close by saying that the motion before us today is very similar to many of the motions we have seen in recent months. To me, this proves that the Conservative members from Quebec have no influence over their leader right now. The Conservative Party's messaging is solely focused on fossil fuels and defending the oil and gas sector. In my opinion, the Conservative members from Quebec have very little influence. Nevertheless, I encourage them to grow a spine and stand up for the interests of Quebeckers, as my leader often says.

1524 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/7/23 11:36:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Bloc, a party only from Quebec that has never formed government and will never form government, seems to take issue with the fact that Conservatives are calling for very clear and simple answers for why senators, including Senator Petitclerc from Quebec, voted to shut down debate and voted to gut a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234. I would ask the same question of Senator Paula Simons from Alberta. She voted to gut and attack it as the deputy chair of the ag committee. She is the deputy chair of the ag committee in the Senate and she voted to punish farmers. I encourage Canadians to reach out, respectfully of course, and share their opinions with these lawmakers in our country. It is essential that they hear from affected Canadians, whether it is a person who is being forced because of the Liberal Prime Minister's policies to visit a food bank or—

163 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:38:00 a.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

11 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/7/23 11:38:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, the member was asked to the leave the chamber yesterday. I am not too sure if there was a requirement of the member to apologize—

31 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/7/23 11:38:17 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member was named and it was just for that sitting day that the hon. member was not allow to attend. I would ask the hon. member to say his final two words because his one minute is up. Then we can go to the response, and to other questions and comments. The hon. member.

56 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/7/23 11:38:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a perfect segue. Lawmakers need to be accountable, whether it is senators in the Senate attacking farmers or MPs in this place needing to be accountable for the words they say. That includes the Prime Minister who certainly needs to be held accountable.

47 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Dec/7/23 11:38:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I never said that we should not hold the government accountable. After all, the opposition's job is to hold the government accountable. However, what we cannot do is intimidate people. We cannot do that. I just want to point out that my colleague was expelled from the House during question period yesterday for using intimidating language. I think that this way of doing things is infecting my Conservative Party colleagues. What I saw yesterday was a profound lack of dignity. I encourage people at home to watch last night's meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. That will give them a sense of how the Conservative Party asks the government questions. People can then judge the Conservative Party's actions for themselves.

127 words

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

Dec/7/23 11:39:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Jonquière to talk a little more about what happened last night in committee. In his opinion, did it lead to any breakthroughs in terms of helping workers in our country, environmental issues and the fight against climate change? What I saw yesterday were attacks on individuals in committee. There were no discussions about what we are going to do as a country to tackle these very important issues. Can the member help us understand what happened last night?

90 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Dec/7/23 11:40:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague and I thank her for the question. I do not agree with Bill C‑50 as it is currently worded. The work I was trying to do yesterday was to bring forward amendments that were proposed to me by environmental groups and unions. Unfortunately, we did not get to talk about those amendments because the Conservative party kept heckling and did not allow us to do our work as legislators. That is what happened yesterday. I will follow up with all these people who proposed amendments to me. I will tell them that, unfortunately, the work that they did was in vain. All those hours they spent reading the bill to try to improve it were for naught and thrown out the window. Why is that? That is because there are people in the Conservative Party who have decided to adopt the spurious strategy used by the member for Carleton to try to intimidate people. What we saw yesterday at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was intimidation pure and simple.

181 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Dec/7/23 11:41:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for his speech and his calm and reasonable tone. After today's big disappointment regarding the cap on emissions for the oil and gas sectors, we see that the big difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives do not even bother to pretend to take the climate crisis seriously. They want to abolish a tax that does not even apply in Quebec. I do not understand why the 10 Conservative members from Quebec continue to argue about that. What is more, we have learned from Statistics Canada that doing away with the carbon tax in the provinces where it does apply would benefit households that earn more than $250,000 a year. I would like to hear my colleague from Jonquière's comments on that.

142 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Dec/7/23 11:42:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. It is true that we often get the impression the Liberal Party claims to be green just for show, but it does not actually walk the talk. Let me share some statistics that do not lie. Over the past two years, the Liberal Party met with oil and gas lobbies 2,000 times. That is 1,000 times a year. That is over three meetings a day, without a break. I do not think that the environmental groups get the same access to the government. That being said, if my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie is not satisfied with the government's policies, he can always cut ties with the Liberals. It is in his hands.

133 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Dec/7/23 11:43:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government released its environmental reduction plan update today and is bragging about only being on track to meet Harper's targets. It is clearly not on track to meet its own targets. I am curious whether the member can comment on this new, but very similar, revelation.

50 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Dec/7/23 11:44:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the major problem is that Canada is taking the wrong approach. They did not want to cap oil and gas production, but they want to cap GHG emissions. That will not work. A rather simple concept, the green paradox, explains why. It seems like we want to give those in the oil and gas sector one last chance to line their pockets by supporting them, telling them that we will try to reduce their emissions. However, production is rising steadily. If one has the least bit of sense, one quickly sees that, if production goes up, worldwide GHG emissions will inevitably go up.

105 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Dec/7/23 11:44:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope the member is at least willing to admit that Quebeckers are disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax. The carbon tax is applied on the trains that go to Quebec, the carbon tax is applied on trucks and semis that transport goods into Quebec and that gets passed on to consumers in Quebec. They are, in fact, paying the carbon tax. I am wondering if the member opposite would acknowledge, at the very least, that Quebeckers are getting a bad deal by this federally imposed carbon tax. Even though it is not imposed in Quebec, Quebeckers still have to pay for the damages without the rebate from the government.

112 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Dec/7/23 11:45:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is no serious analyst who would support what my colleague says. There is no economist in Quebec who would support it. There is no serious public policy analyst who would be ready to support it. However, serious analysts would confirm that inaction will cost us dearly. The climate catastrophes we are seeing, that are causing insurance premiums to skyrocket and forcing us to pay two or three times more for infrastructure, will cost us very dearly. My colleagues should be worried about that. If their goal is to make life easier for families and farmers, I ask them to fight global warming, because it will have disastrous impacts on people's wealth in the coming years.

119 words

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

Dec/7/23 11:46:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder about the problems of having the leader of the Conservative Party going around indicating misinformation in regard to the price on pollution. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that and what he believes the impact will be, just in terms of the general knowledge of the population?

52 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 264