44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/17/24 6:25:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague saying that we could extract 6% more lithium, that we could explore nuclear energy, and so on.
Apart from suggesting that we deplete our soil and subsoil, in Quebec and Canada, does my colleague realize that the humidex in the region is 45 degrees today and that it will be 45 degrees again tomorrow, that 135 million people around the globe will suffer from the extreme heat, and that 19 pilgrims in Saudi Arabia died today, all because of the over-exploitation of minerals and oil?
How does my colleague see the future, he who was born in Canada, this wealthy country that opened doors for him? How does he respond to this? How does he respond to the fact that his fellow citizens in Canada and around the world are dying?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 6:45:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I see my colleague, whom I very much like, get so heated. I am disappointed because I was on a mission with him and I tried to teach him a little more French. It did not work that evening, but he always has a French word to say.
He talks about building a country. It is clear that we do not feel included in that country, because Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois's demands are ignored.
I will list a few of our demands: Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation; increased old age pensions for people aged 65 and over; an end to subsidies for all fossil fuels and support for a clean energy transition; and the transfer of housing money to Quebec.
How does he respond to this? We are not part of the story. We will never be part of the Liberals' federalist story. There is nothing there for us.
Does my colleague agree that the Bloc Québécois's demands remain unanswered?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:18:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if Canada is in a sound financial position here and around the world, as our dear colleague from Winnipeg North, who I really like to listen to, says, why was the government unable to include a single one of the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois? They included giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, increasing old age security for those aged 65 and over, ending subsidies for fossil fuels, supporting a clean energy transition and transferring the amounts dedicated to housing to Quebec.
None of these are in the budget implementation bill. Why is that? For Canada, everything is going well financially. Is it different in Quebec? Are we not entitled to such measures?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:47:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear my colleague talk about banking services. That is something that Bill C-69 does not talk much about.
I have two short questions to ask him about banking services.
First, does he recognize the authority of Quebec and the provinces in this sector?
Second, does he realize that Bill C-69 will give all of Canada's big banks a huge advantage over the smaller ones like Caisses Desjardins in Quebec?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 9:12:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a former parliamentarian just a few days ago. Gilles Perron, who was the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for 11 years, passed away after a brief battle with cancer. He will be remembered as a fighter, someone who was close to his constituents and dedicated to his community. He will also be remembered for his extraordinary commitment to veterans. Any progress made on post-traumatic stress disorder is thanks to him. Dearest Gilles, thank you and rest in peace.
Despite this sad news, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill to implement certain provisions of budget 2024, Bill C-69. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill. Why? It is because too many aspects of the bill go against our values, the needs of Quebec society and what we have been protecting from the very beginning, that is, Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. They are also other provinces' areas of jurisdiction, provinces that might be less combative than Quebec, but, basically, these are our jurisdictions. As I see it, all of this is having a negative impact on the environmental balance of Quebec and Canada.
We have before us a mammoth omnibus bill. We are talking about 650 pages. It contains 67 different measures, 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. Objectively speaking, this bill has some positive aspects, but clearly it has too many irritants for the Bloc Québécois to agree to support it. I will focus my speech on just two points. Given that we are talking about a 650-page bill, we obviously have to limit ourselves. Two things in this bill are very important to me, and Quebeckers are concerned about them too. I am talking about oil and the environment. Oil gets a lot of ink. Far be it from me to make extremist or—how shall I put this—demagogic comments, because people still need oil.
We still need oil, unfortunately, but if we were able to advocate for a well-thought-out, calculated phase-out of oil and gas extraction, that would help us move on to something else and look to the future in a better light. However, our government and the Conservatives are obviously not taking that direction. The implementation of budget 2024 is clear proof of that.
Who here believes that there is a single oil company in Canada that needs subsidies to operate? No one, obviously. I think that even the Conservatives would agree with me. Ottawa is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of a whopping $30.3 billion in tax credits. Subsidizing companies that have record revenues year after year does not add up and is even rather obscene.
The massive subsidies the federal government is giving oil companies in the form of tax credits will total $83 billion by 2035. Six tax credits were introduced by the Liberals in the last two budgets. What is more, this $83 billion is being given to companies whose shareholders are 70% foreigners, people from outside Canada. This creates a significant flight of capital out of Quebec and Canada. It is important to mention it.
As for the profits generated by these same oil companies, we are talking about $38 billion from 2020 to 2022. Yes, we, the taxpayers, are paying oil companies to continue polluting when they are making record profits. That is an insult to our intelligence and, of course, to our environment.
Similarly, the government has implemented a clean technology investment tax credit of $17.8 billion. That is also a rather striking and appalling example. Under the guise of promoting clean energy, this tax credit actually seeks to encourage oil companies to use nuclear reactors, which would, of course, enable them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense.
This bill contains another tax credit, the $12.5-billion carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. The problem is that this money once again enables oil companies to extract more oil. What is more, let us not forget that carbon capture is still in its infancy, in a completely experimental phase. The goal is to recover some of the carbon dioxide emitted and then store it underground, usually in old, empty oil wells.
Interestingly, former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, did an interview with a news site called 24 heures on December 5, 2023. She had this to say about the investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage:
It should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that....We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.
I guess the Liberals need to leave their party in order to speak freely and intelligently.
I will now move on to my second point. People have probably been outside today and are likely aware of the massive temperature increase forecast for this week. We are in for a second heat wave, and it is not even officially summer yet. The temperature with humidex will be 45°C. Some 135 million people will be affected by this extreme temperature. There are also the 19 pilgrims who died today in Saudi Arabia. Let us also think of the teachers and students who are finishing their year and their exams in extreme heat. Above all, I am thinking of seniors whose health is fragile and who will be affected by these extreme temperatures. There are also the farmers who are struggling to make sure they can harvest their crops, which provide us with healthy food.
There is absolutely nothing in this budget to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Do we still need to convince the Liberals that it is nearly too late to take action? It is unacceptable to ignore this issue and not prioritize measures to ensure the quality of life for future generations. The Bloc Québécois cannot just sit back and wait for a plan that will not be presented until next fall.
In closing, I would add that the government did not pick up on any of the priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois before the economic statement. These are priorities that would respond to the real and urgent needs of Quebec and would serve Canadians as well. I will simply conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will continue to stand up for the interests of Quebec and its citizens against unfair and harmful measures like the ones in Bill C‑69.
1194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 9:24:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his condolences to Mr. Perron's family.
This is not about the money going to Canada, Saudi Arabia, Brazil or wherever. It is about creating a plan to get off fossil fuels. The Liberals are not really offering us that plan, and neither are the Conservatives, that is for sure.
We still need oil. Unfortunately, I still have a car that runs on oil, for a short time at least. We need to create a plan to move away from fossil fuels, plain and simple.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 9:25:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was only talking about subsidies to oil companies, which are often indirect.
My colleague mentioned wells, which are reused for carbon capture. That is where the captured carbon is buried. That is the current plan.
I am not saying it is 100% negative. At least they are being used for that rather than being rehabilitated, as they were supposed to be a few years ago, if memory serves. A lot of money was injected into rehabilitating these wells, which, incidentally, were created by oil companies that have not had to foot any of the bill for the damage they have caused to the environment.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 9:27:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is 2024 and it is time to put the brakes on oil. Fortunately, there are alternatives. We are talking about wind turbines and solar energy harvesters that can support entire villages. At my cottage in the Laurentians, I even installed a system that is not fully operational yet but will enable me to take 1,500 square meters completely off-grid in a few years.
This is affordable for everyone. Let us not forget that solar panels cost half as much as they did 10 years ago. They can be installed anywhere on the planet, in Nunavut in fact.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 11:25:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was very thoughtful and wise. I really liked the fact that he said perhaps members should not be allowed to vote to postpone the election because they could be in a conflict of interest. I really liked that.
To me, that is a critical aspect of this legislation. The government is postponing the election for a ridiculous reason. It could have suggested holding it sooner instead. The legislation offers enough opportunities for people to vote early, for example.
The most troubling part is what this does to perceptions of parliamentarians. The public is once again going to take refuge behind arguments like the fact that these MPs will qualify for pensions a little earlier. I myself am one of them. I was elected in 2019, and I absolutely do not support this utterly ridiculous date change.
I would like to hear my colleague talk about how the public would perceive this bill if it were passed.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
