44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 5:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.
How does he explain the fact that the minister made the documents public today after this motion was tabled? Can my colleague encourage the members of his government to learn from their mistakes and to be more transparent?
Now, the Liberals are going to try to appear virtuous. They are going to say that, yes, they provided the study. That is not true. Some unparliamentary words are coming to mind that I will not say. That is completely false. The Liberals have to be forced to do things. We always have to put their backs against the wall for them to take action. We are tired of that. The public is tired of that.
For goodness' sake, can they not take this work seriously and provide all of the information to parliamentarians so that we can make informed decisions?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 5:17:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I regularly see in the House and at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that my colleague is very interested in the cost of the carbon tax and its secondary impact.
Is he also interested in the cost of climate change and its secondary impact? We, of course, have to take into account the effects of any policy that we put in place. Does he, in good conscience, believe that we also need to calculate and compare what the cost would be if we did not have a policy? For example, if we did not have a climate policy, what would the secondary impact be on international trade and a host of other factors? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who set the bar high, as usual. When we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, share our speaking time with each other, we always want to go first because we are all good and that puts pressure on the next person. I will try to make sure my speech is as good as my colleague's.
Today's motion is indeed repetitive, as my colleague mentioned, but it is quite simple. It calls for information. It is too bad that I cannot address the minister directly to ask him the question. I hope he will ask me or that he will want to participate in the exchange, but the first question that I will raise in the House is the following. Why did it take this motion for the document to be released? That bothers me tremendously.
What I find the most difficult about politics is not the long hours, the travel or the documenting work. It is working with so many elected officials who are not always working for the common good or who do not always seem to be doing so. There is a lot of partisanship in political parties in general. One might wonder why the Liberal Party did not make this study public. Is it because it confused its electoral interests with the interests of the public? I am throwing that question out there because it is important and because we have a responsibility here. However, not everyone lives up to that responsibility.
Today is another Conservative opposition day on the carbon tax where we are hearing nonsense. Earlier, a member even referred to the line of the report that gives the projected impact the federal carbon tax would have in 2030, if it applied in Quebec. The cost would be $5 billion. That number was used in question period today and members said that Quebec was losing $5 billion every year. What is that if not a cheap populist approach? I would invite parliamentarians to elevate the debate and show some discipline.
They got the documents. Now, they want something else, they want the notes and the emails. What will they then do with those? That question deserves some thought, considering how the tables obtained today were used. In very short order, the information in the documents was cherry picked rather than subjected to serious analysis. What would happen with the emails and briefing notes? It is a worthwhile question.
I want to reassure everyone, however, that the Bloc Québécois has always supported transparency, and that we are not afraid of information. We want to know how measures like the federal carbon tax will affect the environment, even though the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. We know that we are here, in the federal Parliament and that we are called upon to deal with things happening in the other provinces now and then. That is fine. We have to know the repercussions.
However, we should also find out how much it costs not having measures in place. How much does insurance cost? In recent years, the cost of insurance has risen by tens of billions of dollars. There have been increases of over $30 billion. Do the claims for natural disasters not cost anything? I did not realize that. The floods and torrential rains that affected our farming operations, did that not cost anything?
Many businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. This week I received a delegation of produce growers. According to what these Quebec strawberry and raspberry producers were telling me, dozens of members have announced that they will not be farming this year, because they lost too much last year and the government programs are not working.
They are now telling themselves that climate change is not going to stop, because there is a group of real winners promising to abolish the measures that can help mitigate climate change. It is rather astonishing. That same group of winners actually includes a decent number of elected representatives in Quebec, who agree to speak 9.5 times out of 10 on measures that do not apply to their constituents. That is what amazes me the most.
For a year I have been watching members from Quebec rise in the House and get all worked up over the big bad federal government, over the carbon tax. They say that our farmers are suffering. That does not apply in Quebec. Are they not supposed to be working for their constituents? I keep asking questions. I do nothing but ask questions.
To inform my Conservative colleague who is rising while I am in the middle of making a speech and who seems to be unaware, Quebec is covered by a carbon pricing system called the carbon exchange in association with California. This represents a much bigger market than Canada can offer, by the way. These measures are very effective. What we are seeing in Quebec is that having those measures ends up being less expensive for people and is having an impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Maybe the people in the other provinces who are unhappy with the big bad federal carbon tax should look at what Quebec has put in place, as they are doing on child care and as they want to do on dental care and on pharmacare. Let us look at what Quebec has been doing since 2014. We are still ahead on this. Let us look at what Quebec has done and how this has affected Quebeckers. Maybe some will wish they got on board at the time, but no, because these people want pollution to be free.
I have a lot to say. I am going to run out of time again. However, I want to raise one important point today, concerning the much-touted Bill C‑234. We, the Bloc Québécois, agreed to support this bill even though it did not apply in Quebec. We did so because we thought it seemed reasonable to give people who produce food credits for grain drying and for certain buildings. The bill came back from the Senate in early January. My first speech in 2024 was about Bill C‑234. It had come back with amendments. Instead of returning it to the Senate and having it come back or not come back, or leaving it stuck there without making any progress, we thought that since it had something to offer grain farmers, that it could give them the credit for drying grain, we should support it. I understand the Conservatives' reaction. They initially said no because they wanted the bill to stay in its original form. That is fine; it is part of the debate. However, once the debate ends, voting has to follow.
Now, I am going to talk about hypocrisy. It is June. We are coming up to the summer adjournment and we still have not voted on Bill C-234. As I said earlier, the first speech that I gave in early January was about this bill. Sometimes bills stall in the Senate, but that is normally not the case in the House of Commons. How does someone stall a bill? It is easy. Every time the government wants to put it back on the agenda, people keep rising to fill the time so that we cannot finish the debate and can never vote on the bill. One has to wonder why the Conservatives would want to avoid voting on their own bill. It is because they are getting political mileage out of it. They talk about the bill at least 12 times a day. If we do not vote on the bill, then they can call the government incompetent, unfair and mean. However, they could vote on the bill now and give grain farmers the credit next fall.
I hope there are farmers listening, and I hope they realize that their Conservative MPs are working in the interest of getting themselves elected, not in the interest of our farmers. That really irks me. It grates on me. It gets under my skin when MPs put their energy into scoring political points, posting clips on social media and launching fundraising campaigns. They are raising money. The people who donate that money do not have all the information. I just gave them all the information. The people who are up in arms about the carbon tax are currently blocking Bill C‑234. So much for integrity. So much for noble intentions to help our farmers.
Earlier, I heard a member say that this is why grocery prices have gone up. We know there are all kinds of reasons for that. As my colleagues said earlier, the impact on Quebec is minimal. Yes, inflation is high, and there are other reasons for that. The member stands to answer questions, and he says the answer is no, it is the carbon tax. He can say that a dozen times, but that will never make it true. I would like MPs to be a little more diligent. Let us get serious about working for the common good. I think that would be a good thing.
1564 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:03:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to try to show restraint.
This is astounding. I hope my colleague has put his earpiece in to understand what I am about to say. The Bank of Canada has analyzed the impact of the carbon tax, and it is 0.02%. The carbon tax has a very minimal impact on Quebec. It is very minor.
I would like to inform my colleague that Quebec has its own system, known as the carbon exchange, which also has a certain economic impact. However, this system reduces gas emissions and saves money in the long term on climate disasters.
What I find disappointing is hearing other people say they are disappointed in the Bloc Québécois when, as I explained earlier, we were very reasonable when we agreed to an exemption for grain drying, even though it does not apply in Quebec. Those folks refuse to support it. My colleague certainly did not mention that. I find that disappointing.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:04:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for making an effort to speak French.
I would say that every elected member could make the effort to properly read the documents they are given. The Bloc Québécois is the third-largest political party, and we have a whole research department. Our researchers are brilliant and work very hard. They carry out analyses and give us a really detailed background document before each debate. That is why we sound so smart in the House of Commons.
I find it hard to believe that the government and official opposition do not have their own research departments that are just as big, if not bigger. This is one of those times when we doubt their integrity.
I would advise my colleagues to read the documents and to try to find arguments that align with their political views, but to please not make them up.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:18:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to repeat my colleague's last sentence. He said that if we do not measure, there is no result. He is right. We have to measure.
If there is one thing the Conservatives are right about today, it is that we need information. We voiced our agreement right from the start. Parliamentarians need information to make sound decisions.
Does my colleague agree with me that just knowing information on the economic impact of the carbon tax or other measures is not enough? Does he agree that we also need information on the cost of climate change and natural disasters? Should we not know how much more money ordinary people have to pay for their insurance, which is getting a lot more expensive? Should we not also consider the fact that our farmers are stuck in a shocking state of uncertainty, without any appropriate programs?
Does he agree that we need to reflect on all these measures, be consistent and try to reduce pollution and mitigate economic impacts? Does he agree with that? Is he interested in the impact of global warming or not?
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:44:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question on a topic she is quite familiar with because of her former role.
What does she think about the budget being allocated to defence across the country? As a member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Canada should theoretically be investing 2% of its GDP in defence, but that is not happening. It is not clear that the plan that has been presented will help Canada meet that target.
Could she elaborate on that? I think it is a bit surreal that a Bloc MP is asking that question, but I think it is important.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:33:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. That is unfortunate though, because I have so much to say.
I am going to break free from the populist, accusatory cycle where each person accuses another of having done this or that. I am going to offer some actual substance. In the last few minutes, people have been talking about the cost of groceries. That is what I am going to talk about. I am going to talk about feeding the people. I am going to talk about agriculture and agri-food.
Of course, there are a number of things missing from the government's budget. My colleague referred to seniors and old age security, which the government stubbornly refuses to increase starting at the age of 65, even though people need it. The government could consider making unconditional health transfers to the provinces, rather than inventing new pan-Canadian programs, claiming that it has the knowledge and is going to tell the provinces what to do. It is introducing a new program that will be added on top of what Quebec is already doing. What is more, in their emotional speeches, they have the nerve to tell us that they are inspired by Quebec, which is ahead of the rest of Canada on the social front. I have a confession to make: We are not just ahead of the game socially; we are ahead in a lot of areas.
I would like to see a federal government that looks after its responsibilities, that has the ability to issue passports on time and get work permits to our temporary foreign workers. These workers end up in a very vulnerable situation when their one and only employer, who was expected to employ them for a year or three, lays them off after three months. They are left with nothing. Our federal government is not competent enough to issue work permits in a timely manner. The government recently made a commitment to issue permits within 30 days. I look forward to that. I want to believe it. These temporary foreign workers have no choice but to work illegally, so they are exploited. That makes no sense. We do not have to put up with that in a G7 country. It is terrible.
Shoreline erosion is another issue that I work on a lot in my riding. We ask for funds but get none, even though the issue is caused by shipping on the St. Lawrence, which makes it a federal responsibility.
A while ago, I spoke with the President of the Treasury Board about defence. Canada is a junior member of NATO, yet it is still not investing the necessary funds, despite the current climate of uncertainty. Why?
I just mentioned all those things, and now I will get into my speech. This speech is for the folks at home. It is for people who live in Quebec City, Montreal, Rimouski, Saint‑Félix‑de‑Valois, Louiseville, Trois‑Rivières and everywhere else in Quebec. It is for folks in Laval who are tuning in, sitting in front of the television in their basement. It is for Hugues and his son, Noah, who are watching us and wondering if we are going to help them and make sure grocery prices go down. Let us be serious. What I am seeing in the government's measures is that Canada is still spending less than 1% on support for agriculture and agri-food. I think that is totally ridiculous. I think the government needs to wake up and put some money into that.
I want to talk about that and address the people at home because I also want to draw their attention to the fact that most people take the agriculture and agri-food sectors for granted. This week, there was a press conference with produce growers, strawberry and raspberry producers, berry producers. They came to explain to the Minister of Agriculture why he urgently needs to launch the AgriRecovery initiative that he never seems to get around to launching. We keep being told that the officials are doing the math. I would like them to work overtime because this aid has to go out. It is needed. For almost a year now, our farmers have been asking for an emergency fund, for support to help them cope with interest rates. The Government of Quebec took action. Announcements were confirmed. However, that is not enough. Let us not forget that half of our money is here in Ottawa and that agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. Talks should start without delay.
We have been talking all day about a government that was forced to release a document because this motion was about to be moved and everyone knew it was going to be adopted. That is why the government released the document, but if there had not been a motion, it would not have done so. This government is always like that.
I wish it would not wait for food shortages before taking action. It made a strange decision recently in the agri-food and agriculture sector, one that is highly open to criticism. A decision was made to reduce the percentage of foreign workers in processing plants from 30% to 20%. Someone will say that it was just a pilot project to see what would happen. All right, but we know that we need these individuals. There are not a lot of people. Only 7% of the population has even the slightest interest in agriculture and agri-food, especially processing plants, but people need to eat. We need these workers. Our industries are in jeopardy because of a serious labour shortage.
There are measures for skilled trades, of course, but the government should think more carefully before taking such action, especially since we have heard a rumour that it is thinking of reducing that number to 10%. Good luck with that. Let us be serious. These are key sectors. When will there be an investment fund, an incentive for businesses to modernize their facilities without going deep into debt and putting themselves at risk in the coming years?
Unfortunately, we saw an example of that in recent weeks with Saladexpress, which just closed. The company renovated its plant two years ago, but because of supply chain issues, inflation and problems with imports, it had to close its doors because it was so far in debt. The government needs to be there.
Various studies by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food show that there are gaps when it comes to infrastructure investments. The government needs to do more to help our farmers and to recognize what they are doing. For years, I have been pushing the idea of providing financial compensation for positive environmental actions, because when farmers protect waterways, everyone benefits. That is taking a long time to get off the ground.
The whole day has been spent talking about taxation and more negative impacts, so to speak. Can something positive also happen? I think we have to trust the people on the ground, the people who are going to innovate the first chance they get. We just need to give them the space to do it.
I want to talk about risk management programs. We asked for an emergency program to help farmers, but nothing has happened. It has been seven months since the Quebec government asked for this program, which is supposed to come to the rescue when no other program has worked. It is called AgriRecovery. Farmers have been asking for it for a year, but it has not been offered yet. We need something faster than that. We need something responsive.
Speaking of responsiveness—I have talked to the minister about this so much that I am probably nagging him—I would invite the government members to sit down with industry representatives and immediately start thinking about how we as a society are going to share the risks collectively for farmers.
The sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership will end in 2028, but the government should not wait until 2027 to start working on this. Let us not forget that the previous negotiations were held up for months because some provinces did not want to participate.
It might also be time to start accepting the fact that one-size-fits-all measures for all of Canada do not make sense. We do not all have the same climate or the same soil. We are not all the same size. Adaptation is necessary, and that means decentralizing decisions. Again, I know the good old centralizing government will not like what I am about to say, but it will have to agree to transfer funds and accept that people on the ground are best equipped to make decisions.
Eating and drinking is not optional. No matter what people do with their lives, they all eat and drink every day. Let us remember that and respect the people who get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night because they feed our people.
1536 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:44:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is funny that he should mention that, because I raised it earlier in the day. I do not know if he heard my speech.
What I would like to say is that we have two choices. We have a bill that has been amended by the Senate. We can choose to accept the amendments and immediately give our grain producers a win, since they would be able to get the exemption this fall, and then do something different for the rest of the buildings. I hope that my colleague understands that this bill has never applied to Quebec since we first started debating it. In supporting this bill, the Bloc Québécois was simply making an effort to do the right thing.
The message I would like to send to members of the Conservative Party is that they should stop getting speakers to fill up the entire hour of debate. We know where everyone stands now. We could move on to a vote and score a victory for people for the fall, but the Conservatives would rather score political points on the backs of the farmers they claim to defend.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was impatient because I was so excited to answer. What a great question. I am certainly getting spoiled this evening.
We are not against pharmacare. Let us ask these union representatives the question and give them the choice. Let us tell them this: The federal government is increasing health transfers and we can put more money into our Quebec pharmacare program, which has been around for many years and which should serve as a model and inspiration for Canada, instead of having Canada come in once again to crush our system with its pan-Canadian version.
That is exactly what I was talking about at the beginning of my speech. The NDP did not run for politics in the right Parliament. I would invite them to read the famous contract that they signed behind our backs one night in 1982. Ironically enough, the Bloc Québécois is the only one that abides by that contract because we have no other choice. We respect the institutions. We came here to defend our people and we are stuck with a contract that was forced upon us. However, it seems as though we are the only ones who have read it.
Health care falls to Quebec and the provinces. Give us our money. We have a program. What I find most shocking about all this is that we have a public system in Quebec and now they want to replace it with a private company that is going to line its own pockets. It was the same thing with ArriveCAN and all the goddamn Liberal scandals that have come to light since this government came to power.
280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:04:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member talked a lot about housing, massive investments and connections with the municipalities. Is he aware that, in Quebec at least, the money for municipalities has to go through Quebec? It is a law that exists in Quebec.
Is he aware that Ottawa imposing conditions, trying to set requirements and starting to get involved in municipal zoning, when it is so far from local communities, makes no sense? Does he agree to transfer the money to Quebec unconditionally?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:51:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about many things, obviously, including international trade. He talked about the importance of improving our performance in international trade and increasing our markets. That is good. There is Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy. I think it is important to make every effort to diversify our markets.
My question has more to do with respecting existing international trade agreements. It is good to invest money in developing markets, but when we sign agreements, it is also important to stake one's claim and stand up for oneself when things are not working.
For many years, the agreement with Europe put us at a disadvantage with respect to agriculture, when supply-managed quotas were being offered freely. At that time, we were supposed to make gains, by selling meat, beef and pork. However, that did not happen because the Europeans do not accept our way of cleaning the carcasses even though it amounts to what they do over there.
Will his government finally come up with something tangible, not just fine words, to free up these markets? The situation is outrageous.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:31:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:35:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting yes.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:37:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yea.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:38:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting yea.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 11:45:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
