SoVote

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

May/7/24 12:34:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is right. There are a lot of problems in this budget with regard to areas of provincial jurisdiction. I am thinking of things like child care, dental care and school food programs. What is the government thinking? How can it implement these programs in Quebec?

49 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/7/24 12:35:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree, the government should just focus on taking care of the things it is responsible for. I think that would be the most efficient way of proceeding. The Quebec government knows what needs to be done. Maybe it needs more resources. Ottawa is spending money in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction because it may have too much money. That is what we call the fiscal imbalance. Ottawa should take care of its own responsibilities, and Quebec should take care of its own responsibilities too, with the resources at its disposal. I am not saying this will work, since Quebec would like to be in control of every area of jurisdiction, but the fact remains that we do not want our jurisdiction to be encroached upon.

128 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/7/24 12:35:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that ghost fishing gear and marine debris are huge problems in our waterways. When fish ingest them, they carry the plastic with them. It is infecting our whole ecosystem, yet the Liberal government cancelled the ghost gear fund. My colleague supported my motion back in 2018, and all of Parliament supported it, to direct the government to create this fund. As a coastal member, is she disappointed by the government's withdrawal of the ghost gear fund, despite the fact that plastic pollution is choking our oceans?

91 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/7/24 12:36:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is a timely one, since an article published yesterday said that the north shore, where I live, is experiencing the consequences of plastic pollution. I am talking about the north shore, but in fact it is in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its estuary. Any measure aimed at reducing plastic pollution would be welcome. I cannot say “solving” plastic pollution, because that might be too ambitious, but at the very least, if it helps reduce or end plastic pollution, for both the oceans and—

94 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/7/24 12:37:04 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Jonquière.

12 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/7/24 12:37:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, there is nothing new in Bill C-69. It is merely an extension of the budget, so it continues to indulge the oil and gas sector and maintains this government's predatory federalism without any consideration for Quebec. My colleague from Manicouagan said earlier that we will be voting against the budget. I want to emphasize that. We will be voting against Bill C-69 because the atmosphere in the House has been going downhill for some time. The Conservatives are trying to lump us in with the Liberals in a very populist way. I saw it again this morning on social media, where the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles tried to associate us and the Liberals with pedophiles, telling people to call our constituency offices. I find this shocking, coming from a party that talks so much about law and order. Instead, we should be talking about law and order and bullying. That is the Conservative agenda, but we will let them play that game. My leader often says that no one should ever wrestle with a pig because they will both get dirty and the pig likes it. We will not be doing that. I was talking about indulging the oil industry. There is nothing new here. With Bill C-69, Canada is behaving like a unitary state and confirming its role as an oil monarchy. Before moving on to the truly problematic part, which is to say the power grab that is the consumer-driven banking act, I would simply like to point out that on more than one occasion, the Prime Minister has said that people do not care about jurisdictions. However, a Leger survey shows that 84% of Quebeckers want Ottawa to respect jurisdictions. Accordingly, the federal government is missing a wonderful opportunity to act with the banking act. This legislation will federalize the entire financial sector and strip Quebec of its powers in this area. Rather than adopting a collaborative approach in Bill C-69, Ottawa wants to unilaterally lay down the rules that apply to banking services, an area of shared jurisdiction. As is the Liberal government's wont, it will give the big financial institutions in Toronto a significant leg up on their counterparts in Quebec, such as the caisse populaire. Under the proposal, the provinces will be excluded from consumer protection or privacy protection once the financial institutions interact with their clients through a technological platform. To impose this framework, the federal government will need to act in three stages. It must determine the standard, task a federal agency with maintaining a registry of institutions conforming to this standard and designate a federal agency to serve as regulator, which involves verifying the compliance of the institutions on the registry. It is on this third point that there is a major issue jurisdictional interference. By acting in this manner, the federal government is interfering directly with civil law by regulating institutions coming under Quebec jurisdiction and by subjecting them to federal legislation. This is evidence of what we have been seeing for a while now, namely the government's desire to behave like a unitary state, as though the federation did not exist, as though Quebec did not have its own powers. This is what we have seen with pharmacare. This is what we have seen with dental insurance. This is what we have seen with multiple instances of interference in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. It is Groundhog Day for interference. The same is true of energy. I said right from the get-go that Canada is confirming its status as an oil monarchy. It is also confirming its very cozy relationship with the oil and gas sector. What do we see in Bill C‑69? We see yet another subsidy for the oil companies in the form of the infamous investment tax credit for so-called clean hydrogen. As we know, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is no longer interested in talking about hydrogen colours. Previously, there was green hydrogen, made from hydroelectricity, grey hydrogen, made from gas, and another one between the two, called blue hydrogen. The latter is made from gas, but it comes with carbon capture and storage strategies that are as yet unproven. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources prefers not to talk in these terms anymore. In Bill C-69, we again see a tailor-made program that would allot tax credits between 15% and 40% for hydrogen production. It is no secret that this is mainly for the gas sector. I went to Berlin with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and we took part in a meeting with Siemens, a major corporation that told us that the idea of producing green hydrogen from gas was destined to fail. The Siemens people said that the state would need to take on risk, the risk of higher prices. As we are seeing with Bill C‑69, the state will have to heavily subsidize the rollout of gas-produced hydrogen. There is also, however, a technological risk, according to Siemens, because the technology needed for this venture is not ready, and it will again take a massive infusion of public money to get there—

880 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/7/24 12:43:57 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member, but I would ask the other members to kindly continue their discussions outside because the noise is starting to be a problem. The hon. member for Jonquière may continue.

40 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:44:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, thank you. I was saying that the tax credit for green hydrogen is a pipe dream, according to a number of analysts who specialize in this area. Members may recall that the government announced its intention to end fossil fuel subsidies in 2023, yet in 2023 alone, it gave $18 billion to the oil and gas sector. The government also said that a definition of inefficient subsidies was forthcoming, but to my knowledge, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is still unable to provide us with this definition. Over the past four years, as we know all too well, $65 billion of our money, and a significant chunk of the money that comes from Quebec, has been given to the greedy fossil fuel industry. Moreover, if we extrapolate the cost of the measures contained in this budget up to 2035, this greedy industry will end up with a cool $83 billion. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which met yesterday to study the appropriations. We saw almost nothing for one of Quebec's most promising sectors, the forestry sector. We have been hit hard by forest fires in recent years, but there was almost nothing to support small forestry businesses that will have to deal with situations that are, all in all, quite disruptive. In closing, I would be remiss if I failed to mention clean electricity and the fact that the federal government wants to meddle in Hydro-Québec's rates. Ottawa is trying to meddle in Hydro-Québec's rates by saying that if it wants the 15% tax credit, it will have to pass this money on in the form of a rate cut, when we know full well that the rates are set by a board in Quebec and that this is therefore completely out of the question. Moreover, Ottawa says that a certain proportion of the people working on Hydro-Québec projects will have to be Red Seal certified tradespeople. That means that if Hydro-Québec wants the tax credit, it will have to let the federal government select the employees needed to build Hydro-Québec's new infrastructure. This is completely ridiculous, and I do not see why Hydro-Québec should put up with these requirements. For all these reasons, we will be voting against Bill C-69, and I hope it is clear to my Conservative friends that the Bloc Québécois is not in a marriage of convenience with the Liberals. Practically no one in Quebec is buying this narrative, as far as I can tell. Maybe they should pipe down and stop spinning this line.

460 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

May/7/24 12:47:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for the member from the Bloc Québécois is this: How much extra hydro energy does Quebec have, and what does it do with the product?

33 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:47:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not fully understand my colleague's question. I apologize. I can simply say that Hydro‑Québec has never received support from the federal government to pay for its facilities, unlike the oil and gas companies who, for the past 25 years, have benefited from generous tax credits and completely unbridled support from the federal government. As I said in my speech, these large oil and gas corporations are possibly the greediest players in Quebec society. In addition to polluting our lives and tarnishing our record on greenhouse gas emissions, they are making record profits while we continue to pay for them. This should concern my colleague far more than Hydro‑Québec.

121 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/7/24 12:48:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, in Bill C‑69, there is, for example, the government's commitment— Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I cannot hear myself speak.

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/7/24 12:48:41 p.m.
Watch

I agree. I do not understand what is happening. The noise continues. We will check to see what is happening. The hon. member for Montcalm.

25 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/7/24 12:48:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if more members across the way attended the debate instead of lingering in the lobby, that would be better.

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/7/24 12:49:02 p.m.
Watch

The member knows that we cannot make mention of members who are present or not. The noise is currently coming from the opposition side. The hon. member for Montcalm.

29 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

May/7/24 12:49:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the bill includes a commitment to introduce dental care and pharmacare. The Quebec nation, speaking unanimously through its national assembly, told Ottawa it did not want this. What we want is the right to opt out with full compensation. We will enhance our own programs ourselves based on our own priorities. Can my colleague tell me how a member from Quebec could possibly ignore the unanimous voice of the Quebec nation, as expressed by its national assembly, and see what Ottawa is going to do as political progress?

90 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:49:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is completely right and he answered his own question. How can anyone ignore the wishes expressed by the Quebec National Assembly concerning pharmacare? I heard my colleagues in the NDP say that the unions were on board. I would like to point out to my NDP colleagues that many unions belong to OUI Québec, a sovereignty group. I do not know whether my colleagues are willing to respect the unions' wishes on that issue and support Quebec independence. I would be glad to hear an answer on this subject.

95 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/7/24 12:50:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recently supported the major federal subsidies to build electric battery plants. Why is the Bloc Québécois supporting the federal government's expansion in the province of Quebec?

40 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:50:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know what my colleague is referring to, but there is one thing we will never support, and that is Conservative common sense. We will never support populism and overly simplistic thinking. What I am seeing on social media right now is certain people posting half-truths in the hope that the staff at our riding offices will be flooded with calls from all sorts of cuckoo conspiracy theorists. In my view, the Conservative Party is making this atmosphere of unbridled polarization even worse. We will never support that. That is for sure.

97 words

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

May/7/24 12:51:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing is clear to us in the NDP. Access to dental care for everyone is a priority for millions of Quebeckers. It is a priority for the four million Quebeckers who have no access to dental care right now because they do not have private or public coverage. We said we were coming to Ottawa to fight for this. We made it happen. We delivered on our promises. It is starting to become a reality, and we are very proud of it. With regard to the Conservative Party's populism, my colleague reminded me that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is posting vicious attacks on social media and lumping members in with dangerous criminals. He is pointing people to the offices of Liberal and Bloc Québécois members. I think that behaviour is despicable, and I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that the Conservative Party is turning into the Canadian wing of Donald Trump's party.

173 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/7/24 12:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, basically, it is very simple. What I can tell the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is that, if people in my riding office receive any threats, I will hold him personally responsible.

36 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 310