Madam Speaker, it has been quite a day. We have heard a lot of different things. I will do my best to remain calm.
For starters, the Conservatives wonder why we do not adopt their motions, why we do not vote in favour of most of them. I will tell them, quite honestly, that it is because most of their motions are rigged. Most of their motions contain inaccuracies. Then, they get offended when we say they are not telling the truth. We are here to serve the public interest; we are not here to pass anything and everything.
It is interesting, because our party is mentioned in the motion. During question period today, I even saw members of the official opposition asking questions of the Bloc Québécois. I found that very interesting. Perhaps they see an independent Quebec in the future, with some of us in government. I found that amusing, so I just wanted to point it out.
The motion states that the Bloc Québécois supported and adopted the clean fuel regulations with the Liberal government. It also refers to the Liberal-Bloc coalition. It is rather funny, though, because coalitions change from one week to the next in this Parliament. Sometimes we hear about the Liberal-NDP coalition. Sometimes the Conservatives also move motions that make sense, and we support them. When that happens, the Liberals talk about the Bloc-Conservative coalition. It changes all the time, so it is super entertaining. I invite people at home to do a survey on this and compile the statistics to see which coalition is the most frequent. Clearly, it is a bit ridiculous to make these accusations.
Today's motion states almost verbatim that the Bloc supported the clean fuel regulations. I often tell my constituents that it is very important for the Bloc Québécois to be present in the federal Parliament, even if our political party will never be in power, because we have a great deal of influence. That said, I did not think our influence was that significant, since regulations are adopted by the government. We do not vote on regulations, so when the Conservatives say that we passed those regulations, it is not true.
If it upsets the Conservatives when we tell them that it is a lie, then what can we say? I will go back to what I was saying. On top of that, these clean fuel regulations will have no impact on Quebec because the Government of Quebec already has regulations that call for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 15% by 2030. That is what it says in the regulations.
We are not the ones who adopted the clean fuel regulations and we never supported them. What is more, these regulations will make no difference to Quebeckers' wallets. What I am saying is serious because they have been repeating this all day long. Repeating a lie a million times does not make it true. Actually, it depends on the lie. For a year now the Conservatives have been saying that the Liberal government has been in power for eight years. When they started saying that it had been only seven years. It was therefore not true. In a month it will be eight years, at which point it will be true. I am not sure if that will work for the other lies, but it works for this one.
We are here to work for the people and to try to move forward on issues. Some will say I am a dreamer, but I want to quote John Lennon. I just had a flash. There is a line in the song Imagine that goes like this:You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
As a parliamentarian, I dream of the day when election campaigns last a month and a half or two months instead of three or four years; in the interval, we would work for the common good. I invite my Conservative colleagues to watch sittings from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I think we manage to work well together, and I am very proud of that. I have said it several times before in the House.
I try to bring the same attitude here. In that spirit, I will not start calling this or that member a liar. Instead, I will state that what was said is not true. Some might say that it is the same thing, but at least I will not use unparliamentary language. At least there is that.
The Bloc Québécois did not adopt the clean fuel regulations. I hope they make a clip of what I just said. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. I hope they make a clip of that, too. Quebec has an emissions trading system that was established with California and that is still in force. The system was set up in 2013, if I am not mistaken. That date is just off the top of my head. It may have been a little more recent than that. Actually, forget I mentioned the date. This system was adopted prior to the carbon tax and is advantageous for Quebeckers. It is estimated that it adds 8.8¢ to the price of a litre of gasoline in Quebec, compared with 14.3¢ for the carbon tax. That definitely means we are at an advantage, not a disadvantage.
When the Conservative members from Quebec strongly denounce the carbon tax, accuse the mean old Bloc of costing Quebeckers a lot of money and say that, if they take office, they will repeal the carbon tax and put money directly back in Quebeckers' pockets, it is not true. Quebec's emissions trading system will remain in effect even if the Conservatives repeal the carbon tax that applies in other provinces. It is important to point that out. When I rise in the House, I will always make it my duty to clearly and calmly set the record straight.
We said that the Conservatives were proposing simplistic solutions. Earlier, a member quoted our use of the word “simplistic” and said that the Conservatives' solution was indeed simple because it would put money back in Quebeckers' pockets. The word “simplistic” actually means something that seems simple but is actually ineffective and poorly thought out, something that does not actually solve the problem. With all due respect, I would invite the Conservatives to look up the definition of the word “simplistic” so that they know for next time. Perhaps they should stop trying to exploit opposition to climate change and the cost of living for their own political gain. It is true that the cost of living is high and that that is very serious, but there are other places where the government can find money. Oil companies are making outrageous profits. We talked about that today.
At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we studied inflation at the grocery store and made some recommendations. One of them, of course, was about the need to determine the breakdown of the profits being made by the major grocery chains, which constitute an oligopoly. The five major grocery chains control 80% of the market. We are hearing a lot today about the price of gas. Funnily enough, the oil companies are also an oligopoly. As far as gas is concerned, we know how much money those companies are making. As far as the grocery sector is concerned, we do not know. What we are saying is that we need this information to determine what action the government can take, because concrete measures will have to be taken to help our agri-food businesses.
There is one thing that boggles my mind when it comes to the fight against climate change. It is hearing some people say that we need to produce oil and build pipelines, without taking climate change into account, because they expect that this will lower the cost of living. I urge my colleagues to talk to vegetable farmers, particularly in Quebec, but also elsewhere. Some had to deal with torrential rains all summer long. Of course, we cannot always make a direct scientific link between a particular season and global warming. However, I could also mention forest fires, more frequent hurricanes and a whole host of other events.
We cannot link each element directly, but we can see that the frequency is higher, that the climate disruptions are substantial and that it is costing money. It is not true that climate change does not cost money. It is costing us a tremendous amount of money. This summer, the forest fires cost us $8 billion, and that does not even take the long-term effects into account. Just think of the cost of insurance. There will come a day when the companies will no longer want to insure people who live in fire-prone areas. That is important as well. As far as insurance is concerned, can we determine together how to share the cost of the risk factor with farmers in order to maintain food production for the future? Keeping food production local and not relying on foreign companies that can raise prices overnight could also bring down the cost of living.
In closing, I invite my Conservative colleagues, with all due respect, to be more conscientious. Let us work together for the common good.