44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 7, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 12:37:04 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time.
Three weeks ago today, the government's Minister of Finance delivered Canada's budget for this fiscal year. Today we are debating the budget implementation bill. In the current Parliament, it has been titled Bill C-69. That is a vile title. The last Parliament that lasted long enough to get to 69 government bills was the 42nd Parliament, the Liberal government's first Parliament.
It has been downhill ever since. The Liberal government thrives on divide-and-conquer misinformation narratives in order to keep Canadians unfocused on how much worse this country's prospects have become after nine years of aimless management. I say “aimless” benevolently, as if the Prime Minister and his flock do not actually know the harm they are causing the economy and the country.
However, I worry that it is much worse. I worry that Canada being the first post-nation state means we dismantle all that Canada has stood for, all that Canadians value in their institutions and all that new Canadians strive to be part of as they seek to build a new life in this once great nation.
After nine years, we are far less than we have been. Our economy is the sick child of the G7. Our international standing in the world has suffered greatly. Our friends no longer see us as a dependable ally. Our military is limping along, and we continue to underfund our capabilities in what is clearly becoming a more dangerous, less secure world. The world is now seeing more conflict than it has seen since the end of the Second World War, almost 80 years ago.
The Liberal government remains oblivious to what is on the horizon, because it is content to navel gaze and mislead Canadians about where we actually stand in the world.
Bill C-69 still has a clang to it that has crystallized what has been misguided about the government from its outset. The last Bill C-69, from six years ago, was successfully challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. There, finally, the constitutionally offensive parts of the legislation were overruled. However, that was a legal journey that took years.
It was as if it could not be foreseen and avoided. We had years of divisiveness in this country, of project delays and of holding back taxpaying sectors of Canada's economy while shovelling money out the door to well-connected insiders. We had years of economic destruction and of watching our closest competitors move forward in a rapidly changing world while Canada's opportunities were held back. We had years of the Liberal government feeding propagandists billions of taxpayer dollars to trumpet its recycled narrative, to no benefit for the country but much benefit to the pockets of connected insiders.
The previous Bill C-69 was a vile affront like no other, and this one can only pale in comparison.
Budget 2024, as delivered, was a 416-page document, with lots of back-patting and nonsensical narratives, plus a 74-page supplement. It was entitled, “Fairness for Every Generation.” What a great marketing slogan that is. Was the title because excessive overspending would affect every Canadian equally badly? I would caution that it is particularly bad for young Canadians, those who are being saddled with paying for the cost of $1.3 trillion of Canadian debt, which is growing with no end in sight.
How do we tell new Canadians or those entering the workforce, “Congratulations, you are now inheriting your share of debt for money thrown away by a spendy government that knew nothing about fiscal management”? It is $30,000 per head, in addition to the provincial debt that, in many cases, doubles that number; their mortgage debt, if they are lucky enough to own a home; and their student debt, consumer debt and auto debt payments. Is it any wonder that Canadians are considered some of the most indebted people in the world?
Many times, I have clearly stated in the House that the metric the government tries to use, the debt-to-GDP ratio, is neither comparatively useful nor, in fact, honest. It tries to re-collect the amounts that Canadians have had deducted from their paycheques specifically for their retirement, both in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan. The government pretends that those amounts, over $800 billion, should be used as collateral for the government.
It does not work that way elsewhere, but the Liberal government is content to mislead Canadians so they can use this in their justification of showing financial prudence. It is dishonest.
If the government's backup plan for maintaining fiscal stability in the future is to take back, and I should say “steal back”, the funds Canadians believe belong to them, independently managed for their retirement, then tell that to them directly. The Minister of Finance should directly say, “Canadian workers, all pension earnings are our collateral, used to capitalize our overspending.”
This budget implementation act that we are debating takes what was in that nearly 490 pages of budget information and puts it into legislative format, 660 pages of legislative changes to be addressed, debated and voted upon, an omnibus bill. It would be interesting if it had much to do with the budget, but as always, it is a mishmash of legislative changes, much of which have absolutely nothing to do with the 490 pages presented in the House of Commons three weeks ago.
I was really looking for the parts of it that were relevant to young Canadians who are trying to buy a home or who are trying to rent a home in a rising housing market with stagnant salaries, while inflation is making their purchasing power for food, rent, clothing, heat, light, education and the basics more challenging.
The budget was presented with much fanfare. It is called “Fairness for Every Generation”. The government seized on the problem being felt most acutely by Canadians, particularly young Canadians, and presented an array of programming to address the real issue of housing, the inability to house Canadians.
The cost of buying a house has doubled under the government's watch. The cost of renting a home has doubled under the government's watch. Has take-home pay doubled? Absolutely not. As a result, the ratio of housing prices and rent to income has doubled in these past nine years. Housing is not just twice as expensive. The ability to fund one's home now takes twice the percentage of one's take-home pay.
Canada's economy has withered in relation to our peers. Nothing gets done in this country unless the government writes someone a cheque to do it: “Please, set up business here with taxpayer money.” It will pay $4 million to $5 million per job provided, as long as it is in the right area or what it thinks is the right industry, flavour-of-the-day stuff, chasing what everyone else is chasing, risky business, taxpayer-funded corporate welfare and funds that will never be recouped in the economy.
I counted the number of initiatives the government would take to alleviate housing concerns, the most resonant concern to the public. There were 53 measures to address housing: building, financing, mortgaging, targeting, bribing, pontificating. I then went through the 660-page bill, and I found two points that were relevant to housing.
The first is the increase to the homebuyers withdrawal plan limit from $35,000 to $60,000. I would like to see the size of that target market, a Canadian who has over $60,000 in their RSP and does not have a home. That is definitely not the financial makeup of the great majority of Canadians who have found themselves squeezed out of Canada's housing market.
The second measure allows the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to increase its mortgage default insurance limit from $750 billion to $800 billion. Remember, that $750 billion was temporarily increased from $600 billion in 2020 to deal with the effects of the pandemic, long passed. I suppose some temporary effects last longer than others.
This is $800 billion of risk that the government bears for mortgages in Canada. That is in addition to the almost $1.3 trillion in debt the Government of Canada owes money managers around the world or the $350 billion of liabilities at the Bank of Canada.
Canada's federal government debt payments now total $54 billion a year. That is more than the government spends on health care. That is more than Canadians pay through the GST.
The issue with housing is a cautionary tale. Housing should be a sound investment, one that holds its value over time, especially if the homeowner provides the proper upkeep, a store of value for years when incomes will be lower. It is a savings plan and it is a contrast to paying rent, where one's payments will always rise with inflation and the value accumulated is paid to someone else. Sometimes that makes sense, but most Canadians benefit from owning a home.
For the sake of young Canadians who hope to one day raise their families in homes like their parents did or like they anticipated when they moved to Canada, let me advise the government to listen to all of the voices that are telling it this, including the Bank of Canada governor: Get the budget balance back. Stop causing inflation. Let the economy grow, and stop punishing sectors that are not its chosen sectors.
1614 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 1:03:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, where does one start when one hears a speech of that nature? We can tell it is drafted by the Conservative Party of Canada as it tries to mislead Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us compare that speech to reality. One of the things I raised was the fact that Canada is number one in the world in terms of per capita direct investments. That means people around the world, corporations around the world, are looking at Canada as a place to invest.
Let us compare the Liberals to Stephen Harper. In 10 years, the Conservatives created under a million jobs. In less than 10 years, we have created over two million jobs. Trust me and get outside, because it is not as bad as the member tries to portray. Canada is not broken.
Why does the Conservative Party want to try to portray something that is not true? Canada is not broken.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
