44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 29, 2024 11:00AM
The first point I would make, Madam Speaker, is that the member seems to be suggesting that corporations were not greedy eight years ago because food prices were much lower then and that suddenly now, maybe it is something in the water, the level of greed in the country has grown dramatically over the last eight years, and that is the sudden cause of food price increases.
The reality is that big corporations always do well in an inflationary environment, and the reason is very simple. If we have stuff, then we get richer when stuff goes up in price; if we need stuff, we get poorer when stuff goes up in price. That is why inflation is always a tax on the poorest people to the benefit of a tiny minority on top. It is not just those who sell stuff, but also those who own assets who become better off.
That is why I warned, in the House of Commons, in the fall of 2020, that printing $600 billion was going to lead the billionaire class to become extremely wealthy, and it did. The gap between rich and poor has grown. I knew this would happen because when hundreds of billions of dollars are funnelled into the financial system, it balloons the assets of the people who have, and it increases the costs on those who have not.
Inflation is the most immoral tax. It is the tax that takes from the have-nots to give to the have-yachts. Not only will Conservatives get rid of the carbon tax on food, but also we will get rid of the inflation tax on everybody.
276 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I visited with three farmers in my riding over the Christmas break. The three farmers paid a combined total of about $630,000 in carbon tax in 2023 and got zero back.
I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition has to say about the Liberals' comment that people are getting back more than they are paying in when those three average farmers in my riding paid $600,000-plus in carbon tax in 2023 alone. That is with the 20% exemption rate and not the full carbon tax. They are only paying 20%.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the story I hear from the farmers in my constituency. I stood and mentioned the Medeiros farm in south Carleton. I read their bills into the record and asked the Prime Minister how he expects them to pay those bills when he quadruples the tax. This is the worst part of the Liberal-NDP carbon tax. They plan to quadruple it.
As bad as one's bills are today, if they get re-elected, the NDP and the Prime Minister will quadruple the tax to 61¢ a litre for gasoline. Similar proportional increases on natural gas, propane and oil heating will follow. That is their plan.
To be very clear, the choice in the next election will be between the costly coalition, which will tax one's food, punish one's work, take one's money, double one's housing cost and unleash crime and chaos in one's community, and the common-sense Conservatives who will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 12:52:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Oral Questions later this day, the House observe a moment of silence for the Honourable Ed Broadbent, and that afterwards, the member for Burnaby South, followed by a member of each of the other recognized parties and a member of the Green Party each be permitted to make a statement to pay tribute, and that the time taken for these proceedings shall be added to the time provided for Government Orders.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 12:53:01 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by asking for unanimous consent to share my time.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne.
Before I begin, I want to wish you, Madam Speaker, and all my colleagues, a happy new year. This is the first opportunity we have had to do so. I also wish a happy new year to everyone in Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
I would like to mention that today I am wearing a small green square, like many other members, because January 29 is the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia. This small gesture is made in support of the families and loved ones of the victims of the Quebec City mosque attack.
We are here to debate Bill C‑59, which seeks to implement the budget. This bill can be described as an omnibus bill. It is a bit of a hodgepodge. There is a tremendous amount of items in there that affect many different topics. Today, I will be talking about the environment, housing, pregnancy, vaping, business transfers, psychotherapy and tax havens. Why will I be focusing on all these topics? It is because Bill C‑59 addresses them all and many more, but these are the ones that interest me the most.
When I was in my riding over the holidays, I kept hearing the same thing when I met with constituents. Based on what I was told, people sometimes get the impression that they have no idea what we do in Ottawa or what measures we are working on. When they listen to the radio and watch television, they hear slogans from the different parties geared to the next election. The election is not due for another year and a half. In the meantime, we have work to do as parliamentarians, as elected members. That is what people elected us for.
There are bills that are currently before Parliament, including this economic statement. I think that we need to analyze them. Even though it may be a rather tedious job, we need to analyze everything in the bill and determine what is good and what is not so good. Obviously, as with any omnibus bill, there are some things that are good and some that are less good, and we need to strike a balance between the two.
Unfortunately, there are two key measures in Bill C‑59 that make it impossible for the Bloc Québécois to support it. Because of those two measures, we cannot vote in favour of the bill, despite the fact that, as I was saying, it does contain some good and important measures, although some of them could use a bit of tweaking. Quite simply, voting in favour of the bill would fly in the face of our party's values and those of Quebeckers. I am talking about our environmental values and the importance that we place on protecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. What poses a problem for us is the measures that the government describes as environmental, which I would say are more pseudo-environmental, and one of the housing measures.
I want to start with these two measures. First, the government is offering a total of $30.3 billion in subsidies, in the form of tax credits, primarily to oil companies. This means that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to try and pollute less. That is essentially my understanding of the tax credits that are being offered.
As for the second measure I was talking about, the government is going to create a federal department of municipal affairs. A similar department already exists in Quebec and the provinces, and it manages municipal affairs. The federal government has decided to legislate in this area and create a department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This means more interference, more disputes and more delays. Why is it taking so long for Quebec and the federal government to agree on certain projects? It is because the federal government wants to impose conditions, and that delays the process. I fail to see how creating another department will help facilitate that process.
Let us begin with the much-discussed tax credits for oil companies. Quite frankly, they do not need any handouts. According to the Centre for Future Work, the oil and gas extraction sector has raked in record profits in recent years, to the tune of roughly $38 billion over three years. Everyone heard me correctly. I said the government wanted to add another $30 billion to that $38 billion, as though they needed it. When I look at those astronomical amounts, I think about all the other areas where the federal government could invest money, for example to help people cope with the rising cost of living.
It is being reported that roughly 70% of shareholders in the oil and gas sector are foreign. In other words, that money is going to leave the country. In the last two budgets, the government announced its plans to introduce no fewer than six tax credits largely for oil companies. According to information and figures provided by the Department of Finance, these investments will total a whopping $83 billion by 2035.
People talk about the climate crisis and say that we need to do more to fight it. This government's solution is to give the oil companies more money to create more pollution. I have a hard time following that logic.
This bill will amend the Income Tax Act by creating two tax credits. The first is a tax credit for investments in clean technology. We are talking about a $17.8-billion investment in clean technology. That sounds promising and desirable, but on closer inspection, it becomes clear that the tax credit is tailor-made for increased bitumen extraction and gas exports.
The oil sands are essentially tar mixed with soil. Extracting it is energy-intensive. Hot water or steam has to be injected into the ground to liquefy the tar, which then floats on polluted water to be recovered. Oil companies currently use gas to heat this water.
However, the industry would rather export its gas than use it to extract oil. That is timely, since there is a new liquefied natural gas terminal being built on the coast of British Columbia. It is a gateway to Asia. TC Energy has almost completed the Coastal GasLink pipeline and the Shell and LNG Canada liquefied natural gas terminal should be operational in about a year. The only thing left is to make more gas available for export and that is where the clean technology investment tax credit comes in.
Under Bill C‑59 the oil companies would be paid to buy small nuclear reactors. That nuclear energy, which would replace the gas they are currently using, would allow them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export, all at taxpayers' expense. I am not going to get into that today, but we have already talked about how small nuclear reactors are not such a good idea, for various reasons.
Yes, the tax credit can be used for other purposes, such as a real transition to renewable energy. Some good examples are in the manufacturing sector, including the use of biomass by paper mills and the development of carbon-neutral aluminum. I think that would be a good way to use this tax credit. However, given the enormity of the investments needed for the oil companies to use nuclear energy to extract more bitumen, we can expect the oil companies to pocket most of the profits.
As for the second tax credit, the one for carbon capture, utilization and storage, we are talking about an investment of $12.5 billion. Since I have only two minutes left, I will unfortunately not have time to talk about the positive aspects. That is too bad, because I really wanted to explain to my constituents all the little measures I mentioned at the beginning. I will therefore continue to talk about the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage, because I find it quite interesting that the government is touting this as an environmental measure when, once again, the government is merely helping the oil companies perhaps pollute a little less. Rather than accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the government would rather help them in that way. Oddly enough, this tax credit is only available to businesses in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Carbon capture and storage is an experimental technology through which big polluters would recover some of the carbon dioxide that they emit and store it underground, usually in old empty oil wells. That is a key element of the oil companies' and the government's pseudo-environmental strategy, even though the International Energy Agency, which is part of the OECD, believes that countries would be making a serious mistake if they were to make carbon capture the focus of their environmental strategy. The International Energy Agency believes that such technology is smoke and mirrors, that it is as of yet unproven and that, if it were to one day be used on an industrial scale, it would produce only marginal results at an exorbitant cost.
Even knowing all that, the federal government wants to move forward with this technology. Why? To pander to the oil companies, of course. Independent media outlet The Narwhal released a document obtained though the Access to Information Act that shows that Suncor helped to write the government's environmental policy, particularly the section on carbon capture found in Bill C‑59. In December, we learned that the government met with oil and gas lobbies at least 2,000 times between 2022 and 2023.
That shows just how involved the oil companies are in writing the Liberal government's strategies. This will do nothing to help Quebeckers and Canadians fight the climate crisis. That is why we will be voting against this bill.
1678 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think of foreign investment, government policy on legislation and budgetary measures. Working with Canadians, on a per-capita basis, when we talk about gross number of dollars being invested in Canada, Canada is actually number one in the world with respect to foreign investment. Much of that investment goes toward renewable energy. Canada is now a leader when it comes to electric batteries. The value of communities are increasing greatly because of the mega-plants going into them, Volkswagen being one of them.
Does the member recognize, whether through things like trade agreements and government policies, that we have seen an enhancement in investment that will ultimately contribute to the world because of many of the green projects that are taking place in Canada today?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course, when the government wants to invest just over $30 billion in clean technologies, names like that make a good impression. The government gets to feel like it is clearly investing in the environment. However, knowing that most of this money is going to the most polluting sectors of our economy, I wonder whether there is a way to ensure that this money is invested solely in renewable energy, not in the most polluting sectors. I do not know whether the strategy can be rewritten, but surely there is a way.
At this time, I cannot congratulate the federal government for investing in green energy when I see that it is investing most of its money in carbon storage, utilization and capture. As I was saying, this technology is still unproven. It is very expensive and yields very few results. Most companies have not yet begun to implement these technologies, and yet our greenhouse gas reduction targets are just around the corner.
How are we going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, even if we invest all this money? I do not know.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, given that we are discussing the fall economic statement, is she concerned with the increase in the size of the national debt? In 2015, the national debt was $600 billion. After eight years, the government actually managed to double it. In fact, it has spent more money than all other prime ministers combined.
Is she not concerned that we are on the wrong trajectory and that we need to get our budgets under control?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to spend smarter. We do not need new investments. The money we are already investing needs to be spent on different things.
This $30 billion is going mostly to oil, but why not invest it in health transfers to the provinces instead? The government could also give more to Quebec for housing and allow Quebec to implement its own projects with the municipalities. There are plans on the table, and organizations are just waiting for federal funding. In my own region, apparently people got the green light from Quebec City and wanted to move forward, but there is no more money because the CMHC affordable housing fund is empty.
Why not invest the money better and then balance public finances?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which clearly set out the Liberal government's inconsistencies and contradictions when it comes to the environment.
She had an excellent question for the Conservative leader, who does not talk about the environment and the climate crisis at all.
What does she think about the Conservatives' specious solution of using carbon capture to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, carbon capture and storage is not a solution. The UN tells us so. The OECD and the International Energy Agency tell us not to focus all our efforts on that, not to put all our eggs in the carbon storage basket, because it will not work. We will not be able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as much as we would like or hope.
The government is quite ambitious, I must say. It has set its greenhouse gas reduction targets fairly high. However, it is not doing anything to reach them. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development told us not long ago, in 2023, that a few measures here and there were good, but that the government was dragging its feet on implementing them. That is why it is not delivering results.
The Conservative Party says that we need to get into carbon capture and storage, which they say is a good idea. Clearly, the party has not been getting its information from scientists, because they say that carbon capture and storage is not a good idea.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since this is my first time rising to speak in 2024, I too would like to take a moment to wish you and the people of Terrebonne, whom I represent, a happy new year.
Speaking of 2024, the clouds continue to gather and cast a shadow over the sunny ways this government promised a long time ago. Every elected member of the House was able to see, when they went home for the holidays, that Canadians and Quebeckers may finally have something in common: They are very worried.
If we look closely at the key economic indicators, we have to admit that they are right to be worried. Housing prices continue to skyrocket, since vacancy rates are at record lows. What is more, food prices are soaring. We are still waiting for the postpandemic economic growth that was promised. When this economic statement was presented, there was no denying that urgent action was needed. Urgent action is still needed now.
This government keeps assuring us that it is there to continue making progress for Canadians and that it will continue to be there. It was therefore with little hope that the Bloc Québécois and I did a deep dive into this economic statement. We wanted to see how, faced with so many challenges, the Liberal government would try to take action.
Let us start at the beginning, with small and medium-sized enterprises. Last month, Statistics Canada published its figures on the health of our SMEs. Urgent action was needed for nearly 170,000 Canadian businesses that were in complete uncertainty. They were in limbo then, and they still are now. They had a choice between owing a lot of money, up to $60,000, to the government or owing money to a financial institution that, as we know, offers loans with very high interest rates. Some business owners have paid back the $40,000 by remortgaging their home or by dipping into their line of credit. Just imagine how much pressure these people are under after devoting their life to their business. If we do the math, we see that these 170,000 businesses represent a little less than 13% of all Canadian businesses with employees. More than one in 10 businesses is currently operating in a state of uncertainty, unable to repay its loan or unsure about its ability to repay it.
Businesses, particularly SMEs, are not just the backbone of our economy. They are also a key part of the social fabric of many of our communities. However, in the economic statement, the government does absolutely nothing to help our SMEs and has decided to ignore the unanimous calls from the Quebec National Assembly, all of the premiers of all of the provinces, including Quebec, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Association Restauration Québec. They have all asked that the CEBA loan repayment deadline be extended. The government ignored them. It is simple. We have been and are still calling for the government to set up a direct line of communication with businesses that are having problems or that have questions. We are calling for flexibility regarding a program that the government created and then offloaded onto financial institutions.
How can the government fail to understand that urgent action must be taken, when all politicians and businesses are unanimously asking it to prevent a wave of bankruptcies? This is urgent.
Urgent action is also needed to address the unprecedented housing crisis. Over the past five years, the average rent in Quebec has increased by 25%, and CMHC predicts that this trend will continue until 2025, with an increase of up to 30%. This means that a growing number of households are spending more and more of their disposable income on housing, while the price of other nccessities also continues to rise. The cost of food, for example, increased by 5.9% in 2023, forcing the average family to pay an extra $700 a year to put food on the table. Since household income is not keeping pace with price increases, people's purchasing power is shrinking. Every year, Quebeckers and Canadians are gradually losing a huge proportion of their disposable incomes to pay for necessities like housing. In plain English, I am talking about how much they are paying just to get by.
An emergency homelessness fund is also urgently needed to address the unprecedented crisis currently affecting Quebec and Canada. In Quebec, homelessness has increased by 44% in five years, which translates into nearly 10,000 people experiencing visible homelessness. This does not include hidden homelessness, which at any given time affects 8% of the population, mostly women. These are the coldest months of the year, and tens of thousands of people do not have a roof over their heads. The Bloc Québécois understood that urgent action was needed to deal with the situation, so it proposed establishing an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support people experiencing homelessness.
What does the economic statement have to say about that? Let us look at the housing page. Alas, there is nothing.
There is nothing planned until 2026. Is that what urgent action means to the current government? It seems like it. True, the government is eliminating the GST on housing construction, but Professor François Des Rosiers, who teaches real estate management at Université Laval, says that this measure will do nothing to solve the rental housing shortage because costs keep rising. This was hardly the best measure to propose when urgent action was needed.
Worse yet, to top it all off, the government announced in its economic update that it will be creating a new department of housing, infrastructure and communities, to give the impression that it is doing something. The government essentially wants to establish a department of municipal affairs. That is called interference. We already have a federal department of housing, infrastructure and communities, but Quebec also has its own minister responsible for infrastructure.
This announcement is likely the most important one that was made in the economic statement, but it is also the emptiest. Rather than actually dealing with the crisis, like the Bloc Québécois suggested by calling for the implementation of a emergency fund or an interest-free or very low interest loan program to stimulate the construction of affordable rental and social housing, the government is promising money in two years and creating a department of interference.
The Bloc Québécois clearly identified priorities and even possible solutions to deal with the problems in each of these areas. We did the work for this government. However, the economic statement does not offer much in the way of new measures. At best, it reiterates the measures announced in the last budget. At worst, it completely ignores issues that are essential for the future of Quebec's and Canada's prosperity. Here is a very good example. In this budget, there is only one paragraph about the Canada emergency business account.
It sums up the announcement made in September about the extra 18 days to pay off a $40,000 loan. Yes, 18 days. How generous. Clearly the government does not understand the meaning of the word “emergency” because, when there is an emergency, action needs to be taken. For eight years, this government has been hindering Quebec's prosperity. Whenever the Liberals are forced to take action, they consistently fail. Just look at the passport crisis, the housing crisis, the fight against climate change or even running water on reserves. They dislike taking action so much that they have to hire consultants to do the work for them.
In two months, the Deputy Prime Minister will table a new budget. I hope it will be better than this economic statement. I hope it will be better for Quebec. Regardless, it will be just be one more reminder that there will never be a better budget for Quebeckers than a budget prepared by a sovereign Quebec.
1353 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I disagree with much of what the member said. I am sure she is not surprised by that particular comment. She referred to purpose-built housing, homes and apartments, where we are getting rid of the GST to encourage more growth. It is projected that there will be literally thousands of new units built as a direct result. Likewise, we now have provincial jurisdictions that are doing this with the PST.
Would the member not agree that, if the provinces are now trying to duplicate what the federal government is doing, in an attempt to increase the supply of purpose-built homes, it is a good thing? Would she not support that?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my answer is quite simple: It is totally inadequate. It will probably not get any new rental and affordable housing built. Why? Interest rates are too high.
It may make sense on a small scale, but interest rates are so high right now that no one is interested in borrowing money to build rental and affordable housing. It is totally inadequate.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their comments, which illustrate that the money provided by the federal government, by way of our taxes, I would point out, is not being invested in the right place.
Speaking of urgent needs, there are two files we have been working for years, even though they both concern federal programs and involve no interference. The federal government spends more time interfering than looking after its own affairs.
Old age security for our seniors is urgent, and so is employment insurance reform for workers in struggling socio-economic regions. These are two key measures for supporting Quebeckers. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend for her excellent question.
Old age security is indeed essential for many people who have reached a certain age and need it to live on. We also know that inflation is causing major headaches for these people who still need to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. However, the government did not increase old age security for all age groups, as it should have, despite the bill that was passed and that had been introduced by the Bloc Québécois.
Another great example is employment insurance. It is one of the few files that is in the federal government's hands. How long have we been waiting for the reform, one year, two years or three years? I do not know how long it has been. Where is that reform? Why is there still nothing for employment insurance?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when it comes to housing, we know that the government is not doing enough or acting quickly enough. However, there are ideas being floated, like creating an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations. There are other proposals.
I wonder what sort of action the member would like to see the federal government take on housing.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
