So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 204 - Jun/1/23

Jun/1/23 10:25:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2029-30, the carbon tax will be $170 per tonne. That is the Liberal plan. Here is what the carbon tax has achieved so far: Absolutely no greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets have been met. According to the UN report that my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent will be talking about, Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries. I would like to remind my colleague that I said Quebec has a provincial cap-and-trade system. I made that absolutely clear. Quebec has a different carbon pricing system, but Quebeckers are still paying a carbon tax under another system, and the government wants to impose a new tax that will cost families an extra $436 per year.

120 words

Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23

Jun/1/23 10:14:23 a.m.
Watch

moved: That, given that, (i) the first carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 41 cents to a litre of gas, (ii) the second carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 20 cents to a litre of gas, (iii) the combination of carbon tax one and carbon tax two will mean that Canadians pay an extra 61 cents for each litre of gas, (iv) making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch this Liberal prime minister is, (v) the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which they live, the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two (the "Clean Fuel Regulations"). He said: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. The Prime Minister lives in a parallel world, a world where fiction reigns supreme and reality is largely absent, a world where people just invent solutions to very real problems. In reality, these solutions sadly do nothing to solve those problems. Imagine a meeting of the federal Liberal cabinet where each Liberal minister dreams of changing the world in their own way, but where each of those dreams unfortunately turns to a nightmare for the real world. That is exactly what we are experiencing in Canada with this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s good ideas are very costly for all hard-working Canadians. Instead of adopting responsible fiscal behaviour that will reduce the cost of living, the Liberal government has passed an inflationary budget that increases the cost of everything for all Canadians. Instead of adopting a real plan to address climate change, what has the Prime Minister done? He went ahead with a tax plan that in no way changes emissions in Canada to actually address climate change. Instead of implementing common-sense policies that respect the situation of Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet each month, the Prime Minister chose to implement measures that make life even more difficult. Why? To satisfy his own conscience, by making those who are the very foundation of our country and our economy, our workers, pay for his “woke” policies. Today’s motion is clear. Allow me to reread it because it is very important and this will have an impact and disastrous consequences for all Canadians and for Quebeckers, despite what those in the government and the NDP‑Liberal coalition will be claiming all day. The motion states that the first carbon tax and the associated sales tax—because the carbon tax is taxable with the GST—“will add 41 cents to a litre of gas”. It also states that the second carbon tax, and the associated sales tax—the GST that will also be added to the second carbon tax—“will add 20 cents to a litre of gas”. If we do the math, we see that, with those two taxes, Canadians will pay 61 cents more on a litre of gas because a tax will be added to a tax that will be added to a tax on another tax. That is a lot of taxes. When it comes time to pay at the pump, when Canadians use a debit card or, too often today unfortunately, a credit card to fill up, they realize it right away. Above all, when Canadians have to make difficult choices like travelling less on their own or as a family for activities or leisure because they can no longer afford the fuel they need to get around, they are being deprived of their right to live. We never expected something like this to happen in Canada. Let us return to the motion. It says that “making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis”, like the one we are currently experiencing, “by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch this Liberal prime minister is”. It also mentions that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and not the Conservatives, “confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which they live”. In Quebec, this new carbon tax will cost more than $400 per year, per family. What the motion is asking is that “the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one”. Why is it a failure? According to a recent United Nations report, how did Canada rank among 63 countries, despite the carbon tax being imposed on Canadians? If we listen to the Liberals, we would think that Canada's performance is very good and that this country is in the top 10. Looking at how deep the Liberal government will dig into Canadians' pockets, we might expect Canada to be among the best countries because it is costing everyone so much. However, Canada's actual ranking is 58th out of 63. I will not go further on that topic, because my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has the study with him and he will talk about it in his speech, which is coming up next. I encourage everyone to listen carefully to his speech. Unfortunately, the Liberals want to make the middle class pay for their so-called fight against climate change that does absolutely nothing but deprive Canadians of the financial resources they need to make ends meet. I will return to the motion, which proposes that “the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two”, the new tax that is about to be added. It is not enough for the Liberals to cause so much suffering to so many families; they want to go even further with the clean fuel regulations. These regulations will be applied right across Canada, even in Quebec, and Quebeckers will have to pay more at the pump for the same tank of gas. I think that that is enough. I had the opportunity to talk to many citizens in Mégantic—L'Érable who are at the end of their rope. I visited every food bank in my riding. They have all seen an increase in the number of people using their services. People no longer have enough money to live on, and the Liberal solution is to take even more from the pockets of Canadians. One in five Canadians goes without food because groceries are too expensive. In addition, nine out of 10 young Canadians no longer dream of becoming homeowners in this country because rents are too expensive and homes are unaffordable. The Liberal solution is to impose yet more taxes. I already hear the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell us, as he does regularly, that we should know that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, which has a provincial cap-and-trade system. In Quebec, this system is less visible than a carbon tax. I will quote from the report of the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It says that the “cap-and-trade system is less visible than a carbon tax because it because it involves creating a market mechanism for allocating the right to emit a certain amount of carbon in the form of allowances....Therefore, there is little information on the pass-through cost of prices within the system that affects both SMEs and consumers.” Does that mean that they are not affected by carbon pricing? No, not at all. Quebeckers are still affected by carbon pricing with this mechanism. Also, if we increase the carbon tax in Canada, the cost of absolutely everything will increase. Guy Parent, who has been a trucker for 30 years, said that the automatic reaction of companies that pay the carbon tax is to “pass it on to customers”. In this CFIB study, it is said that any increase in taxes will certainly have an impact on consumers because small businesses do not have the resources to absorb these increases. Now, Quebeckers are being asked to pay even more through a second carbon tax that will deprive them of even more of the income they need to make ends meet. As a result, more and more Quebeckers will need to turn to food banks. Who are the victims of this ideology? Is the coalition planning to reduce greenhouse gases by making all Quebeckers poor? That would reduce consumption and therefore production, resulting in lower emissions. If that is indeed the plan, it is not the right way to go. Depriving Quebeckers and Canadians of the money they need to make ends meet serves no purpose. That is why I am asking all parliamentarians to support this motion.

1503 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23

May/31/23 4:33:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the slogan on the T-shirt, but the T-shirt itself. Just as a man cannot rise without wearing a tie, it is inappropriate for a member to be wearing a T-shirt when rising to speak in the House. A certain level of respect is necessary in the House. I really do not appreciate the comment that the member just made about a simple dress-related rule in the House and the rules that we all have to follow to maintain decorum in the House.

92 words

Context: House Hansard - 202 - May/30/23

May/31/23 4:31:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think you noticed that the member is wearing a T-shirt with very obvious connotations. Promoting any cause at all in the House is inappropriate. It is not a scarf, or something minor. I would ask for your opinion on this situation.

45 words

Context: House Hansard - 202 - May/30/23

May/30/23 2:36:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, let us talk about this government's credibility. On April 27, the Minister of Public Safety said that the RCMP had closed two of Beijing's police stations in Quebec. We then found out that the two Beijing police stations had not received any closure requests from the RCMP. We even learned that one of the police stations on the south shore of Montreal had received nearly $200,000 from this government. Is the Minister of Public Safety essentially the Prime Minister's misinformation puppet? Who is pulling the misinformation strings?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 201 - May/29/23

May/30/23 2:35:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this farce has gone on long enough. With the special rapporteur's report, the Prime Minister's shenanigans to avoid launching a public inquiry have been exposed for all to see. What is really so special about this rapporteur are his ties to the Trudeau Foundation, his reliance on Liberal donors, his status as an old friend of China and, most of all, his close friendship with the Prime Minister's family. When will the Prime Minister end this charade, fire Mr. Johnston and launch an independent public inquiry?

91 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 201 - May/29/23

May/29/23 2:41:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, here is what makes the Prime Minister's special rapporteur so special: Beijing's President considers him to be an old friend of China; he established a Confucius Institute, which is linked to the Beijing regime, at the University of Waterloo; he received an honorary doctorate from a member of the Chinese Communist Party; three of his daughters studied at universities in China; he was a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which received $140,000 from the Beijing regime; and he himself boasted about being a close friend of the Trudeau family. Will the Prime Minister end this glaring conflict of interest today by launching an independent public inquiry, which will now also have to shed light on the appointment of his friend as special rapporteur?

128 words

May/29/23 2:40:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it turns out that the Prime Minister's special rapporteur was not that special after all, except maybe for his ties to the Prime Minister's family and his attachment to Communist China. What other reason could there be for Mr. Johnston to reject an independent public inquiry into Beijing's interference despite a majority vote in the House, the recommendations of national security experts, and the wishes of the majority of Canadians? The Prime Minister picked the title, the mandate and the findings of the possibly special, but definitely not independent, rapporteur. Will the Prime Minister end this circus and order an independent public inquiry today?

109 words

May/18/23 3:44:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just before we go back to our ridings for a week, after a five-week marathon where we sat until midnight several times, I think that we can pat ourselves on the back for the work that we have done and the efforts that we have made on behalf of our constituents in our ridings. I would like the government leader to tell us what we can expect the week we return from our ridings, because most of us will already be back in our ridings tomorrow. Will we have work? Will we have enough resources in the House and for committees? Will we have enough resources to do our work? Most importantly, what does the government have on the agenda upon our return to the House?

129 words

May/18/23 3:43:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the current rules allow a period of time when each of the whips can inform the Speaker and the House of any problems arising during a vote. These problems should have been raised when you asked members to report any problems that occurred during the vote. I think the Standing Orders are very clear in this regard.

66 words

May/18/23 2:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is 17¢ per litre. The new clean fuel regulations are going to cost Quebeckers $436 more per year. That is the second carbon tax that the minister does not seem to want to repeat. No one believes this minister when he says that it does not cost Quebeckers more and that we are not subject to the carbon tax. When someone goes to the grocery store and pays for goods that were transported across the country, they see that it does cost more. We are not crazy, we see the impact of the carbon tax. Why is the government now targeting Quebec with a second tax?

111 words

May/18/23 2:36:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the new carbon tax will cost the average Quebec household another $436. That will come right out of Quebeckers' pockets. More and more people are having trouble paying for groceries and putting gas in the tank. They have to make tough choices to get by. For eight years, Canada has been led by a Prime Minister who makes other people foot the bill for his expenses and his vacations. He has not even had to fill his own gas tank for 10 years. Will he back off and stop making life harder for Quebeckers who are struggling?

99 words

May/16/23 10:19:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, the best way to have a brief answer is to quote the Bloc Québécois itself. The Bloc MPs were so proud of the amendments proposed by the Liberals that they said, and I quote the member for Rivière-du-Nord, “the definition contained in amendment G4 almost feels like the Bloc Québécois wrote it. ...it meets our expectations.” That is the reality.

76 words

May/16/23 10:18:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague had listened to the speeches. Since coming here today, I have had the opportunity to listen to several speeches. I did not hear hysteria in any of the speeches given by my colleagues. I heard about fears, the fears raised by hunters and farmers in their ridings, their legitimate fears because they feel that the Liberal government is attacking them and using them to cover up for its own inaction when faced with the increase in violent crime in our municipalities and all across the country. There has been a 32% increase. What the government wants to do is take guns away from hunters and sport shooters, even though these are not the types of guns that are used to commit crimes. That is unacceptable.

131 words

May/16/23 10:16:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, since the Harper government was in power, it is 32%. That is the figure that the member for Winnipeg North should remember. There has been a 32% increase in violent crime in Canada despite everything the Liberals have done. Actually, I should say because of everything they have done, such as the changes in Bill C-5 concerning parole and violent offenders serving their sentences at home in their living rooms. That is the Liberal government's record after eight years.

84 words

May/16/23 10:05:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

Madam Speaker, 32% is the Liberal government's record after eight years in power. Violent crime in Canada has increased by 32% since the election of this Prime Minister and his Liberal ideology of freeing criminals as quickly as possible, allowing them to be released more quickly and serve their sentences in their living rooms. After eight years of this Liberal government, gang-related homicides have doubled. In 2019, the Liberal government saw fit to pass Bill C‑5, which I will refer to in a moment, that makes the bail process easier. As a direct result of that legislation, more and more criminals are ending up at home rather than in prison. Let us remember this number: a 32% increase in violent crime. Today we are discussing the Liberal government's solution to this violence. I want to ask my colleagues to use their imagination. Imagine the kind of scenario that resulted in the Liberal Party making a recommendation such as this and introducing a bill such as this. Imagine the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety meeting in a coffee shop, probably downtown in some major Canadian city, wondering how to combat gun crime on the streets. The Minister of Justice, seeing the number of illegal guns coming into the country, tells the Minister of Public Safety that the government cannot ban illegal guns because they are already illegal. The Minister of Public Safety adds that weapons that enter illegally at the borders are not easy to seize, because criminals have their ways, obviously. The Minister of Justice says he wants nothing to do with threatening armed citizens who commit violent crimes with longer prison sentences. The Prime Minister said not to be too tough on criminals. It was in that coffee shop that the Minister of Public Safety came up with this brilliant idea. He knows who owns firearms and he even knows where to find them. They have licences. They took courses, and they have a lot of guns. The Minister of Justice was starting to question all of this, but he already saw a good opportunity to divert attention from his inability to put an end to violence in the streets, violence that has made families in too many of our cities afraid. He asked where those guns can be found. The Minister of Public Safety proudly responded that they can be found in all regions of Canada, on farms, in the north and in indigenous communities. They could seize thousands of weapons. The Minister of Justice felt like saying that those guns are not used to commit crimes, but he did not. He preferred to remain silent. Why let facts get in the way of a great Liberal initiative? In this story, that is how Bill C‑21 was born, and quite frankly, I do not see any other way it could have happened, since the Liberals are so far off the mark. This bill had just one objective: to make the Liberal government look good. Unfortunately, it was to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners and sport shooters. I listened to several speeches today. I should point out that this bill was supported by the Bloc Québécois, who left out a part of the story in everything it was saying today. When the Liberal amendment that would have made hunting rifles and sport shooter firearms illegal, the Bloc member from Rivière-du-Nord said in committee that the definition contained in amendment G4 almost feels like the Bloc Québécois wrote it. It meets our expectations. I do not often quote members of the Bloc Québécois, but when it is time to set the record straight, I like to set the record straight. That truly is what the member for Rivière-du-Nord said. It is a fact. Then they strut their stuff and claim that they changed things, but when we see that from the outset they supported a bill that would ban firearms used in every region of Canada and did not react when they realized that people were reacting in their own region, there is a problem. Most of all, there is a lack of credibility. We are here after hours of debate to ask the government to see the light. Although they did backtrack, which was rather strategic and the result of the strong opposition from the Conservatives, hunters and residents of rural areas in Canada, no one has any illusions about the Liberals' intent to go after honest people who are just engaging in a centuries-long tradition. We expect that, as a result of these measures, most of the firearms targeted by the Liberal amendments at the end of last year, including hunting rifles, will again be subject to prohibitions in the future, end of story. We are saying this because we have lost confidence in the Liberal government. Unfortunately, I deplore the naivety of the Bloc Québécois, who seems to be defending the government today. It seems to want to have faith in the Liberal government once again. I must admit that I am not surprised by the position of the NDP, the Liberal government's coalition partner. It cannot be denied that the NDP also reacted to public opinion. It too had openly supported Bill C‑21, its first iteration and the amendments. Why do I not trust the Liberals? It is not because I am a Conservative. It is not because I listened to the hunters. It is because the Prime Minister himself, the member for Papineau, was very clear when when he said, “our focus now is on saying...yes...we're going to have to take [these rifles] away from people who were using them to hunt”. Instead of going after the illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs, the Prime Minister is going to great effort to confiscate the hunting rifles of law-abiding farmers, hunters and indigenous people. Let me be clear. The new definition, or the supposed new definition, is really the same as the old one. Commonly used hunting rifles, which were targeted by the Liberals in the fall, will likely be added to the ban by the new Liberal firearms advisory committee. I am sure a bunch of very independent people will also be appointed to this committee. I would not be surprised to see a Trudeau Foundation executive on this committee. I have had the opportunity to speak with hunters in the Mégantic—L'Érable area. That is why I am here today. They are not reassured by the government's changes to Bill C‑21, nor by the amendments. Most of all, they are hurt that they are being used by the Liberal government for political purposes. They have witnessed the increase in violent crime in Montreal, as we all have. They are shocked that they have been targeted by the government as criminals. These people are careful, trained, and most importantly, they take gun safety very seriously. The Liberal government has the wrong target in its crosshairs. Hunters, sport shooters and farmers are paying the price. No one believes the Liberal government anymore. That being said, these people are realists. They are wiser. I want to quote Martin Bourget from Aventure Chasse Pêche, with whom I had the pleasure of speaking during a big interview on Bill C‑21. He said, and I quote, “Legitimate gun owners in Canada are deeply puzzled about the very legitimacy of the process set out in Bill C‑21 and the enforcement of these measures. They are asking for nothing less than a study of the bill's true impact on the safety of Canadians and on traditional hunting and harvesting, and sport shooting.” Does that sound extreme? No, not at all. It is reasonable. People want to know whether Bill C‑21 will really bring down the crime rate on the streets of big cities and across the country. In closing, I would like to remind members that violent crime in Canada is up 32%. That is the Liberal government's track record over the past eight years. That is the Liberals' grade, and it is not even a passing grade. Unfortunately, because of what they have done in the past, we do not have any confidence in them moving forward.

1426 words

May/16/23 2:40:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about her responsible budget, but not a single Montreal-area MP rose to answer this question. Inflation is still on the rise, causing prices to go up across the board, including food and basic necessities. The system safeguards, interest rates, have slashed housing starts by almost 50%. The housing crisis will get worse. More and more people will have trouble making ends meet, yet the 20-odd Montreal-area MPs have not said a word about the Prime Minister's inflationary policies. When will the Prime Minister, the Montreal-area member for Papineau, clue in to common sense and stop sending more and more Montrealers to food banks?

113 words

Context: House Hansard - 196 - May/12/23

May/16/23 2:38:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance herself said that spending too much would fuel inflation. There are more than 20 Liberals, including ministers and the Prime Minister, who represent the Montreal area. After eight years in government, their record is appalling. There are 360,000 families in the greater Montreal area, or one in five households, who do not have enough money to pay their rent and meet their basic needs. The situation is so serious that Marie Leblanc told Le Devoir that “suicide is around the corner”. Ms. Leblanc has almost nothing left for food and clothing. Why are the members from Montreal abandoning her?

109 words