44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 29, 2024 11:00AM
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
- Jan/29/24 2:02:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are many kinds of silence: the silence of indifference, the silence of complicity and the silence of cowardice. The government's refusal to take a clear position on South Africa's baseless case at the ICJ, its about-face on its once-respectable UN voting record and its abject failure to protect Jews in this country betray all three of those vices.
Calls for the extermination of Jews in Canada have been normalized by the morally bankrupt Liberal brain trust. On Canadian values, the Prime Minister responds with silence, only to amplify the hate. Worse, he stokes it. This weekend's International Holocaust Remembrance Day should have been a stark reminder that “never again” is right now.
Silence in the face of lies can be as damaging as the deliberately confusing position of the Prime Minister. He has one group of MPs say one thing to one community, and he sends another group to say the exact opposite to another community. The calculated silence may be deafening, but everyone hears their shameful cynicism loud and clear. Canadians will get the moral clarity they deserve when—
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 2:11:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the month of January comes to an end, I want to take a moment to recognize Tamil Heritage Month.
I had the pleasure of visiting the Hindu temple in my riding to celebrate Thai Pongal. I want to thank the president of the Senior Tamils' Centre, Pari Srikanthan, for inviting me and Henry Soosaipillai for accompanying me. In keeping with the theme of “Tamilicious: Tamil Food”, we celebrated Thai Pongal.
We honour the vibrant and invaluable contributions Tamil Canadians have made to our country. We also recognize that Tamils faced discrimination and persecution, and many came to Canada to escape this. Today, the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action against Islamophobia, is a day that reminds us of this.
Let us build a Canada where all individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, feel they belong. Let us all fight discrimination and hate to keep Canada the inclusive and welcoming nation we are proud to call home.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 2:14:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, seven years ago today, peaceful Muslim worshippers were gunned down in Quebec.
Three years ago, when the Afzaal family were brutally murdered because of their faith, every single political party leader in the House stood on the steps of the London mosque, recognized that Islamophobia is real and vowed to protect the Muslim community in the face of hatred.
Today, on the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia, we not only commemorate the victims and survivors but also reflect on whether we have taken action to combat Islamophobia in all of its forms, including the suppression of expression.
Our government declared January 29 a national day of remembrance, invested millions in our national anti-racism strategy and appointed a special representative on combatting Islamophobia.
More needs to be done by all political leaders in the House and indeed by all Canadians.
We remember.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 2:20:04 p.m.
- Watch
Following discussions among representatives of all parties of the House, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence to commemorate the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action against Islamophobia.
I would now invite hon. members to rise and honour the memory of the victims of the attack that happened seven years ago, on January 29, 2017.
[A moment of silence observed]
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
