Debates of Nov. 28th, 2023

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend that when the truth strikes a nerve it can sting sometimes, but it is for the best. It is better to tell the truth—

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

The hon. member says that the statement is incorrect so I will give the hon. member for Jonquière the chance to correct that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that he was the victim of intimidation, pure and simple, and that the member for Carleton is the one who came up with that tactic. I am quoting the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

What I am saying is that the members from Quebec themselves know that the member for Carleton was using what we might call the Carleton approach. The members from Quebec themselves warned us that there was a danger, that there was cause for concern. Today we are seeing it become all too real.

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

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, after all this smearing of Conservative MPs from Quebec, I would like to reiterate my point. I never did what the member for Jonquière is accusing me of, and I would like him to retract his accusation.

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

It is really not up to me to decide what is true and what is not. I will let the hon. member for Jonquière answer the member's request.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was referring to an article in which the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that he had been the victim of what I would describe as rather unorthodox treatment. My aim was not to smear anyone. I simply stated the facts. It is a fact that Conservative MPs preferred to support Jean Charest in the leadership race. It is a fact that Conservative MPs said it was irrational to make Bitcoin Canada's currency. I was simply referring to—

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

This is a matter of debate. I was simply responding to the request of the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The member for La Prairie wishes to speak on the same point of order.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member rose in the House to say that my colleague from Jonquière is telling lies. What lies is he talking about? Can the member explain why they are lies? None of this makes sense. The member stood up and accused my colleague of telling lies. What lies? Can he prove that it was a lie? I think it is up to the person rising on a point of order to prove that.

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

Indeed, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will be able to demonstrate to the hon. member for Jonquière that what was alleged is not true.

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

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Jonquière personally accused me of calling people in the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska to ask them to call the member and ask him to resign. I never did that. He directly accused me of doing that as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I am just saying that I did not do that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I told my colleague is that some newspaper articles refer to calls he allegedly made to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska's staff at the time, asking him to resign. I could send him the newspaper references.

Not more than half an hour ago, I asked the leader of the official opposition if he was prepared to repeat comments he has made many times in the past, that people are asking for medical assistance in dying because they have no food. He said that his remarks were based on a newspaper article he had read.

If my colleague is unwilling to live with quotes from newspaper articles in the House, then the same also applies to his leader.

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

We will now move on to questions and comments on the speech of the hon. member for Jonquière.

The hon. member for Beauce.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member for Jonquière spent a lot of time not talking about this morning's motion in which we call on the Senate to pass Bill C-234 as quickly as possible. I was told that this bill does not apply to Quebec. I am going to try again and ask my colleague from Jonquière to check and see what is happening in his riding. If he has the opportunity to speak to farmers who use propane and natural gas to heat their buildings, I would ask him to check with them to see whether there is an additional amount on their bills.

The carbon tax also applies indirectly, because not everything we grow and eat in Quebec comes from Quebec. It is therefore really important to eliminate this tax and to get Bill C‑234 passed as quickly as possible. I hope we can all agree on that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is rather confusing.

My colleague is telling us that the carbon tax applies but that it applies indirectly. It is hard to see what he is getting at.

If we really want to help farmers in Quebec, then we need to defend the supply management bill. My advice to my colleague is to talk to the Conservative senators and ask them to pass Bill C-282 and move it forward a bit more quickly. I am sure that all farmers in Quebec will be much happier with him for doing that than for fiercely defending a tax that does not apply to us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I agree that there is a disturbing Donald Trump type of pattern that we see from the Conservative leader today, which is consistent with what we heard in regard to the Senate intimidation and with how the leader of the Conservative Party responded to a question, in essence, supporting it, as well as what the member gave rise to with regards to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that there is a pattern the leader of the official opposition has taken that is in fact quite disturbing? It is a pattern of intimidation that I would classify as a Donald Trump style. We saw it with the media confrontation, and there was the example of eating an apple. All those types of things come together.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North, which rarely happens. Not only that, but I would use another metaphor, one borrowed from my colleague from Winnipeg North.

He often talks about the Homer Simpson awards. The big winner of the Homer Simpson award in recent weeks is definitely the member for Carleton. He lambasted CTV, saying it was the network's fault that he said there had been a terrorist attack, when it was later proven that that was a terrible lie. He can say that he will be voting against the Canada-Ukraine agreement because of the carbon tax, except that it will be easy to demonstrate that the carbon tax does not apply to that agreement.

We have a double nomination today. There is the Donald Trump award as well as the Homer Simpson award, which could be handed out at the end of the day.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has to be acknowledged that Bill C-234 would not have passed the House of Commons if not for the support of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party. However, I am amazed at the audacity of the Conservatives to lecture us on the Senate when this is a party that appoints failed candidates and party bagmen, and they have a history of using their own senators to block private members' bills in several parliaments past.

However, on the principle of it, does my hon. colleague agree that ultimately the Senate should respect the democratic will of the House of Commons and that no matter what the bill is, if we pass it here, based on the will of the people, the Senate should accede to those wishes?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Then again, the best course of action would be to abolish the Senate altogether.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservatives is confusing. It is hard to tell where they are going.

We talk about the carbon tax. We say that it does not apply in Quebec. They continue to say that it does. We saw that earlier. We say again that it does not apply, and they keep saying that yes, it does apply in Quebec. We repeat that it does not, and they say that it applies indirectly. We simply do not understand them anymore.

When they talk about Ukraine, they stand up in the House and say that they are for Ukraine because they voted against Bill C‑57, which implements the Canada‑Ukraine free trade agreement. They are so twisted that now the Ukrainians are wondering what is happening with the Conservatives and why they are against Ukraine. The Conservatives need to stand up and set the record straight.

My question is very simple. When someone has no substance to offer, the only weapon they have left is intimidation, correct?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as always, my House leader said it best. That is what I called the Carleton method.

That is it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we debate an opposition day motion the Conservatives decided to present to the House, which states:

That the House call on the unelected Senate to immediately pass Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, to remove the carbon tax on the farmers that feed Canadians, as passed by the democratically elected House.

Essentially, today's debate is on a motion to try to get a Conservative private member's bill through the Senate. I am amazed because today Conservatives are acting with outrage that the Senate is not moving quickly enough. It is as if they have not done far worse to move bills slowly in the past.

The cognitive dissonance and the absence of any historical grounding in today's debate is absolutely shocking. When thinking of my remarks for today's speech, two words came to mind: irony and hypocrisy. At best, we could be talking about the irony of this moment, but I think this is just plain and simple hypocrisy because I believe Conservatives are self-aware, and they know exactly about the entirety of their sordid history with the Senate.

Irony is about highlighting the human relationship with reality. It teases out the inconsistencies that reside in all of us, but this is far more than inconsistency. Hypocrisy is simple. It is about contradicting ourselves but with a more forceful and a more deliberate vein. Quite simply, hypocrisy is the pretense of consistency to hide one's inconsistency. Today's motion, if we look at the history of Conservatives' relationships with senators, is definitely one of inconsistency.

Again, I am absolutely flabbergasted at the sheer audacity of the Conservative Party of Canada to come to the House today to lecture members of Parliament and the Canadian public on the Senate. I will get into that in far greater detail in my remarks today.

I want to start with Bill C-234. It is important to acknowledge that the bill was duly passed by a vote of 176 to 146 in the House of Commons earlier this year. It is also equally important to note that the bill would not have passed the House if it had not been for the support of all opposition parties. They include the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. There were also three Liberals who lent their support to the bill. The electoral math in this place shows that those kinds of numbers are needed for any bill. I want to highlight that because often, when I hear speeches by the Conservatives, they tend to conveniently leave out that little fact.

It is also important to note in today's debate that we are not here to relitigate Bill C-234. That was done by the House. The bill went through second reading and then to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have been a proud member for the last six years. I was present for those meetings. I listened to the witnesses. I participated in the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the amendments to it, the reporting of it back to the House and its third reading. The House voiced its opinion on the matter. A clear majority of MPs decided to pass it, and we do not need to spend time talking about what was done.

At the time, I highlighted my support for Bill C-234 because I thought the provisions in it were consistent with the act it is trying to amend, namely the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which was passed by a majority Liberal government in 2018. If members read the parent act carefully, they will see exemptions listed in the act for qualifying farm fuels, farm machinery and farming activities. After careful consideration of the bill and after listening to the many farm groups that appeared before our committee, I agree with them. There are no commercially viable alternatives to propane and natural gas for certain farm activities. I thought this amendment was quite in line with the original document the Liberal drafters put together.

We did our due diligence on this bill. I do not think we need to spend much time dwelling on Bill C-234. I was quite happy with the amendments made to Bill C-234 at the committee stage. Its focus was narrowed so there is more clarity on what it would specifically be applied to. There was also a sunset clause introduced to signal to industry that there is a narrow window of time to start developing commercially viable alternatives. I know, from witness testimony, those efforts are well under way. It is a price signal sending a signal to the market that it needs to step up its game.

I have had the honour of spending, as I mentioned, six years on the agriculture committee. One thing I heard consistently from our farmers is that they are on the front lines of climate change. They are the ones dealing with shifting weather patterns caused by fossil fuel driven climate change. We had entire crops fail, whether from a drought or a flood. There was a shortage of feed, like we had in many parts of British Columbia, due to water sources drying up. That is now the norm in many parts of western Canada, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead. Anyone with a simple knowledge of scientific facts can see this situation is going to get worse.

When I hear my Conservative colleagues talk about support for farmers, I try to put that in conjunction with their support for the oil and gas industry, or their lack of effort in going after the intense corporate profits of the oil and gas sector, which are fuelling the planet's burning right now. There is a dichotomy where my Conservative friends like to say they stand on the farmers' side, but meanwhile, farmers tell us the greatest threat to their livelihood is climate change. I do not see any viable policy alternatives to address that fact.

Let us get to the heart of the matter today: the Senate. Canadians have legitimate questions about the Senate. In Canada's Parliament, we have a bicameral system. We have the lower house, which is the elected House of Commons, and we also have an appointed Senate. If someone is one of the lucky few who are selected for a senator's position, then one has a locked-in job until age 75. One never has to face the electorate. One gets to enjoy all the trappings that office has, with none of the accountability.

I, like every member of Parliament in this place, have to reapply for my job every certain number of years. I have to be accountable for the votes I make, for the speeches I make and for the policy positions I take because that is the heart of democracy. I am not here just by myself. I am here representing the entire riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and those are the people I report to. I have reported to them through three federal elections. Senators do not have to do that.

Only a handful of democracies around the world have an appointed upper chamber. I think many Canadians listening to today's debate would agree with me that in a modern, functional, 21st century democracy, an appointed upper house, with all the nominal powers of the lower house, has no room in this kind of system. The system we have has been begging for reform for many years. The NDP's position on the Senate is quite well known. We have certainly called for its abolishment. We note there are many countries around the world that do quite well with a single chamber of elected representatives.

Other places have indirect elections or have direct elections for their senators. Whatever system it is, at least those senators are accountable to the people they serve, unlike our upper body. This is an important context for today's debate. Ultimately, what we are doing here in the lower house is complaining about the appointed upper chamber thwarting the democratic will of the House of Commons. This is a moment in time, but it has to be placed in the context of history because this is not the first time it has happened.

I also want to underline that I have a good working relationship with a handful of senators, and many serve on the agriculture committee. I have had the pleasure of getting to know them and their work, and I do not question their commitment to their line of work. My comments today are based solely on the Senate as an institution and on the inherent contradictions it has in a 21st century democracy.

Let us go, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, to the Conservative hypocrisy and the Senate. I agree with the Conservatives that they have the right idea in today's motion in calling on the Senate to quit delaying the passage of a bill, in this case Bill C-234. We in the NDP have called on the Senate to do this many times over our history, so this is well-trodden ground for us. I would like to welcome my Conservative friends to the club. They may not be used to this, but trust me, as New Democrats we have a long history of calling for this.

For the Conservatives to bring in today's motion, given their history, is quite something. I really want to underline this for Canadians who are watching today's debate. It is a fact in this place that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have a sordid history with the Senate. They have both been guilty of not only appointing failed candidates, loyal donors and party operatives, but using—

[An hon. member]

Bagmen.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague used the term “bagmen” and that is absolutely a legitimate term.

They have used this appointed and unelected body to block bills from the democratically elected House. One only needs to look at our parliamentary history to see this is not a one-off situation. It has happened many times. To watch Conservatives and Liberals point fingers at each other goes to show that ultimately when it comes to this issue, these two parties are but different sides of the same coin.

With respect to the current Conservative Party, let us take a little walk down history lane. This is the party of Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright. The leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, stands in this place and gives us a lecture on the Senate, when he is the person who, when in government and a representative of former prime minister Stephen Harper, had to day in and day out defend chief of staff Nigel Wright, who gave a $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy because of living expenses. That is what the member for Carleton had to stand up in this place and do time and time again.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Selective amnesia.