Debates of Nov. 28th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how to explain it. I know the member well. We met in a previous life, when he was president of Quebec's federation of municipalities, the Fédération québécoise des municipalités.

I will say it again and, honestly, I cannot be any clearer than this: The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec because we have the carbon exchange. The tax does not apply. Quebec farmers will not pay a carbon tax because it does not apply.

I do not know how else to say it because he simply does not want to understand. I am surprised to hear this from an MP who knows a lot about agriculture and Quebec. He is playing his party's game. He is trying to mislead Quebeckers and farmers.

I cannot be any clearer than that. It does not apply.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I do not think I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague clearly state whether or not that applies to Quebec.

I am asking him again to clearly tell the House whether the carbon tax applies to Quebec, as claimed in the disinformation campaign by Conservative members from Quebec who have the audacity to rise in the House. I do not think they are very interested in talking about the Conservative government's record under Harper, which cut $200 million intended for farmers. That affected Quebec producers.

I am therefore asking my Bloc Québécois colleague again: does Bill C‑234 apply to Quebec?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me another opportunity to provide a few details.

We supported Bill C‑234 because we understand that farmers in other provinces need support to help them make the transition and therefore be exempt from the carbon tax for eight years. However, this does not apply in Quebec because there is no carbon tax, so Quebec farmers will not see a carbon tax on the propane they use to dry their grain on their bills, as a certain member has claimed.

Still, I understand that all farmers currently have needs, especially vegetable producers, who have had an extremely difficult year, the toughest year in quite some time. People are beginning to realize that the government has not been there to respond to emergencies.

I would urge my feisty colleague to convince his friends to support farmers who need help getting through the current crisis.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to part of my colleague's speech. I would like to ask her the following question. When and why was the Senate abolished in the Quebec National Assembly?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is not a history class. My colleague and I are well aware that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of abolishing the monarchy and the Senate. This is not the first time we have said it.

Right now, we have to work with the Senate. We are not in the House to talk about swearing an oath to the King or praying.

However, there is something that we have in common, and I am sure that the member will agree with me that we are both against intimidation. We are against people who use their position, their notoriety and their media visibility to intimidate two women senators because they are not doing what the Conservatives want them to do. I think that is unacceptable.

I am sure that the member who asked me a question disagrees with his party but that he has to remain silent because he has to toe the party line.

Alleged Unparliamentary Comments in the House

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to add some extra information to the point of order that was raised yesterday after question period with respect to the government House leader, the member of Parliament for Burlington, when she said, “Is it because there is a group of Conservative members of Parliament who are pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine and they have to cover for them?”

Yesterday, the Speaker ruled that the Conservatives could no longer say the NDP were Hamas supporters. In that light, we are saying that the Liberals should not be saying that we are pro-Putin when we are not. The Conservatives stand with Ukraine. We have always, unequivocally, stood with Ukraine in their fight.

I want to bring to the attention of the Speaker, when he considers his ruling, that—

[An hon. member]

Point of order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I am making a point of order.

Madam Speaker, in consideration of Russia and a reference made by the government House leader, I want to remind the Chair that on March 17, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant, a red notice, for Vladimir Putin for crimes against humanity and for the unlawful deportation of population and the unlawful transfer of population from the occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russia Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.

As members know, currently over 110,000 war crimes are being investigated by Ukraine against the Russian Federation during its war of aggression. We know that over 9,000 children are currently being held in military camps in Russia and are being reprogrammed or brainwashed by the Russian Federation. All these are crimes against humanity and are war crimes. These atrocities have to stop.

For anyone to imply that the Conservative Party supports Russia is unparliamentary and is in contravention to the ruling that the Speaker made earlier yesterday, saying that we could not make these correlations.

I would ask that this is taken into consideration as the Speaker rules on whether those types of utterances are allowed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is duly noted and it will be taken into consideration.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, in making the point of order, my colleague, once again, mentioned something that one of his colleagues has to apologize for.

I understand that the member is making a point of order in regard to my colleague across the way, the member for Winnipeg North, however, it is a problem for me that he is asking for the comment to be removed when he is doing exactly the same thing his colleague has to stand up and apologize for, as well as withdraw his comment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I think the hon. member was referencing it to make the comparison, and I get it. However, it will all be taken under advisement. It was the member for Burlington, not the member for Winnipeg North.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, it felt like my colleague had verged well into the area of debate in order to defend the Conservative record.

The facts that have been raised here are very clear. The Conservatives are the only party that voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal. That is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That is going into debate. I am going to let the Speaker make the ruling on the point of order with the elements that have been brought to his attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was rather funny to see my whip “whip” the House leader of the official opposition. What a thing to see.

First of all, defending an argument does not mean bullying someone; debating does not mean spreading disinformation; sharing political views is never to be done by pitting people against each other.

I say that because I get the impression that, more and more, the danger I have seen lurking in Canadian politics is becoming all too real. It is the use of polarizing strategies like we have seen in the United States. Far too often the purpose is to disinform and intimidate, strategies that replace reflection and democratic dialogue. I get the feeling that is what we are facing today with the Conservatives' motion.

Essentially, if people have watched the events of the last few days with Bill C‑234, what the Conservatives are saying is that not only are they not too shy to heckle, but they are moving a motion to show us that they will keep heckling and that is what they want to do.

I will not reiterate what my whip said earlier in her speech. Unfortunately, we all know that the leader of the official opposition and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle posted some nasty tweets about two senators to encourage people to intimidate them. My colleague explained it in detail earlier. A Conservative senator had to apologize for saying ridiculous things. We know all that.

We are seeing more and more examples of the Conservatives' intimidation and disinformation strategy. It all seems to come down to one thing for the Conservatives: their fixation on the carbon tax. The Conservatives have a passionate love affair with oil, which makes the carbon tax a cardinal sin in their eyes. This is version one million of my opposition day carbon tax speech. This has got to be the millionth time I am giving a speech on this topic. It is the Conservative obsession. It is a constant.

Speaking of disinformation, In recent days and weeks, we have seen the Conservatives vigorously defend the notion that the carbon tax applies in Quebec, even during oral question period. There is no credible political player in Quebec who would say the carbon tax applies in Quebec.

Furthermore, during oral question period, I recall seeing the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis, brandish a sheet of paper, insisting that the infamous carbon tax existed and that she had an invoice. Afterward, we clearly saw that the invoice referred to the Quebec carbon exchange. There are people in Quebec who would say this kind of behaviour is illegal. The oddest part is that the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis was herself a minister in the Quebec government when the carbon exchange was implemented. This is part of the disinformation, much like the many false ads we have seen, that is, the carbon tax ads that often play in Quebec and that everyone ignores. This is part of this disinformation approach.

They scraped the bottom of the barrel this week, when the leader of the official opposition refused to clearly say, when he spoke of a terrorist attack, that he was likely citing one of his favourite media sources, Fox News. He accused CTV and scolded journalists, saying it was their fault, that CTV was confused, not him. He will not even admit to his own mistakes. Not to belabour the point, but let us recall the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, where they used the carbon tax as an excuse, saying they voted against the agreement because of the carbon tax.

I believe this only proves that the leader of the official opposition—I will not be overly harsh—is not prime minister material. A good chief and leader usually brings out the best in others. They inspire people to excel and, most importantly, follow one of the basic tenets of politics, which is to never mix lies into political discourse—a truth that should apply to everyone—and to never get careless with the truth.

What we have been seeing for the past several weeks is a leader of the official opposition who plays fast and loose with the truth. Then, if anyone disagrees with him and resists his lies, he bullies them.

I will say it: People have talked to us about this. Alarm bells are ringing about how the member for Carleton operates, and those warnings are coming from none other than the Quebec Conservatives. Keep in mind that, during the Conservative leadership race, seven out of ten MPs from Quebec did not support Mr. Poilievre, sorry, the leader of the official opposition and MP for Carleton. Why did they not support him?

There were some rather puzzling quotes. I am talking, for one, about the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He said that Jean Charest, who was a candidate in that race, was likely the godfather of the Liberal family. He was even ordered to retract his statement. He also described Mr. Charest as one of the most corrupt politicians in Quebec. That said, he preferred to support Mr. Charest over Mr. Poilievre. One wonders why. I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

That would be the hon. member for Carleton.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I am talking about the member for Carleton. Sometimes I get carried away and make mistakes.

Why did the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent make that decision? It is because he is well aware of how the member for Carleton operates.

The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier was also very informative on this point. He said that, if the member for Carleton became the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, he would have some thinking to do.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing some noise.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Can we avoid side conversations while members are giving their speeches?

Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I heard the noise, I was saying that the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier stated that he would think long and hard about his future if the member for Carleton became the leader of his party. He said, “I will resign, or join another party in the House of Commons, or sit as an independent, or help form another party.” In other words, he was well aware of how the member for Carleton operates.

Here is another quote by my colleague for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, who said, “I had a lot of respect for Stephen Harper as an economist, and I have a hard time understanding how he could support a candidate who wants to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada and base the economy on Bitcoin.”

Here is a final revealing quote by the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. He said, “I have never seen such an aggressive race or such vicious personal attacks”.

That is why I say that even members of the Conservative Party from Quebec warned us about the Poilievre approach, which consists of two main elements, intimidation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

You used the member's name again. Members are not allowed to refer to other members by name in the House of Commons. It is a well-known rule.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we were told about the Carleton doctrine, which is based on intimidation and disinformation.

The same goes for Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, who said that he was going to tear up his membership card, affirming that the Conservative Party of Canada was putting its entire future within the Canadian political landscape on the line in the last leadership race. He referred to Marine Le Pen's France and Donald Trump's United States, and then concluded by asking whether we really wanted to have this person, the member for Carleton, as prime minister.

To top it off, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was the victim of a hateful campaign. Members will recall that he left the party after the leadership race. When he left the Conservative caucus, he was being bullied by his colleagues. They called his office and told people in his riding to do the same, to pressure him. People like the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles even personally contacted his constituents to suggest they demand his resignation—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is rising on a point of order.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I do not know what is the matter with the member for Jonquière today. He has a long list of smears. What he just said is totally false. I would like him to withdraw his words.