Denis Trudel

[Electoral Participation Act, June 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we have had approximately 150,000 opposition days on the carbon tax. Today, we are studying a different bill, and yet my colleague is talking only about the carbon tax, which—

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is quite fascinating. When I was elected, I was advised to always try to tell the truth, especially in the House, and in parliamentary committee. I was told to just try to tell the truth, to talk about the facts. We have been debating the carbon tax for months now, and what the Conservatives have been saying is nonsense. First, they refuse to accept the idea that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. It simply does not apply.

In response to a question at the Standing Committee on Finance, Bank of Canada representatives said that it applied indirectly to products transported from, say, Winnipeg to Quebec. The financial impact on consumers, as calculated by the Bank of Canada, is 0.02%. Basically, out of $100,000, that is a difference of $20. To hear my Conservative colleagues say that the carbon tax in Quebec is what is causing lineups at food banks is completely absurd.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, a journalist from The Canadian Press published an article on March 26 about an open letter on the carbon tax signed by 165 Canadian economics professors. The letter states the following:

As economists from across Canada, we are concerned about the significant threats from climate change. We encourage governments to use economically sensible policies to reduce emissions at a low cost, address Canadians’ affordability concerns, maintain business competitiveness, and support Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Canada’s carbon-pricing policies do all those things.

In the article, the journalist says the following:

According to the director of the department of economics at Université Laval, Stephen Gordon, economists are “almost unanimous” that carbon pricing is the best way to fight climate change.

He then adds, citing the content of the letter, and look at how wonderful it is:

“Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches”, according to the economists, who say “that is...common sense”.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit disconcerting when we have debates on carbon pricing and the fight against climate change. On the one hand, the government has clearly not done enough for the past nine years, but on the other hand, the official opposition is proposing to do even less. It is quite disconcerting. In my riding, groups are coming to me or writing to me because they are very concerned that Canada is not doing enough.

The Liberals are always bragging about their efforts, their results and so on. According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2022, Canada gave $38 billion U.S., or $50 billion Canadian, to oil companies. The five major oil companies in Canada made profits of $200 billion in 2022. I am not even counting the $35 billion that Trans Mountain cost.

I would like my colleague to tell me, at a time when we need housing, when seniors are struggling, and when people are having trouble finding a family doctor, how can they send $50 billion to the oil companies?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about housing. It is indeed a major problem.

The housing crisis in Quebec and Canada is really two crises in one. There is the problem of availability, meaning the ability to find a home, and the problem of affordability, which is a very serious issue.

Let me give an example. Right now, most federal programs result in the construction of housing units at 80% of market cost. As a result, we are collectively paying taxes to build one-bedroom units in Longueuil that cost $1,300 to rent and two-bedroom units in Montreal that cost $2,000 to rent. That is absolutely unacceptable. We are paying too much for housing units that are too expensive. We do not know who can afford to live in them.

I recently spoke with the Minister of Housing. He is open to the idea of reviewing the concept of affordability in the federal programs to stop funding $1,300 or $2,000 units. What does my colleague think of that?

Does he not think that it is about time we really started funding social housing for the most disadvantaged Canadians, single mothers, victims of domestic violence, all of those people living in tent cities across the country?

We need to fund housing so that they can have somewhere to live.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am always a little in awe when I hear the Conservatives speak. Aside from slogans, I do not hear any solutions or any plan. How would a Conservative government address our current problems?

My colleague spoke briefly about housing. According to the CIBC, all we have to do is build 5.8 million housing units in Canada by 2031. We have never gotten near that number. In fact, we would have to build three times more per year than we have ever built before.

Apart from chewing out the mayors of major Quebec cities like Montreal and Quebec City, what is the Conservatives' plan for building housing units and getting the country out of this housing crisis?

[The Criminal Code, May 30th, 2024]

moved for leave to introduce BillC‑392, an act to amend the Criminal Code to address the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Jordan.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to table this bill today. It closes a loophole in our justice systems, ensuring that the principle of access to justice is followed for violent and serious crimes. It will also help restore public trust in the justice system.

The Bloc Québécois's bill seeks to provide a framework for the use of the Jordan decision by amending the Criminal Code so that the decision cannot be invoked for primary designated offences under section 487.04 of the Criminal Code. These offences are serious crimes that include sexual assault, murder, aggravated assault, kidnapping and torture.

In Quebec alone, 148 stays of proceedings on the ground of unreasonable delay have been granted by judges at the request of the defence since 2021. Our bill will serve as a guardrail against the government's slow pace in appointing judges, which lengthens court delays.

There are currently 57 judicial vacancies in Canada. If the government were to appoint judges as requested by all chief justices of the various courts, we would not need to use this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I spoke about that this morning. Today, we are wasting a day talking about this motion. In my opinion, the answer is clear. The Speaker should step down.

What is more, for the past several months, the atmosphere in the House has been rather toxic and difficult. Anyone who watches the debates in the House can see that members on both sides of the House call each other names and that the tone has become very aggressive and acrimonious. How does my colleague think that we can renew Canadians' confidence in our democratic system with the way that members have been speaking and debating in the House in recent months?

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where this is going. I have been listening to my colleague for a while. Now he is talking about the legislation of Saskatchewan. I am not sure what he is trying to prove.

Today, we are having a debate on the integrity of the Chair, but I am not sure that my colleague is on topic.

[Privilege, May 28th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I will start again. It is a fundamental question of ethics, and I think it is important.

Debates here are always a bit nonsensical. However, I still think we need to follow certain rules. For example, we are not allowed to use certain expressions in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition used language here one day that is not allowed in the House. He was ejected after repeating that he would not apologize for his choice of words.

As a parliamentarian, an elected member of Parliament, did my colleague really think his leader should have been ejected for calling the Prime Minister wacko and extremist?