House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was finance.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 29% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Environment October 16th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I have some news for the Prime Minister. Climate change is hurting our economy. Our inaction is hurting our economy.

We are seeing a growing number of extreme weather events. There are droughts in eastern Quebec and the Prairies; endless heat waves in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa; and forest fires in British Columbia unlike anything we have seen before.

The Liberals claim to be doing more, but they have no intention of changing their plan.

Could the Prime Minister at least follow through on one promise he made in 2015 to eliminate the $3.5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector?

The Environment October 16th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, the IPCC report is clear: unprecedented action is needed to fight climate change and try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has said that she recognizes that “Every country in the world needs to take action, and then we need to be more ambitious about the action we are willing to take.”

However, the Liberals have no intention of being more ambitious. They are maintaining the same targets as the Conservatives and are clearly going to miss them, according to the government's latest performance report on climate change.

Why are the Liberals telling others to do more when they have no intention of doing more themselves?

The Environment October 15th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to the fact that the countries talked a lot about Kyoto but never intended to sign it.

To my colleague, I would say that even though Quebec is not a country, it did fulfill its Kyoto commitments. Other countries could have if they had truly wanted to. However, the United States had no desire to implement it. Canada was all talk but no action.

The Conservatives did nothing on Kyoto. They withdrew from it, so they are in no position to lecture us on respecting international commitments, since they have no intention of working with other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They simply want to rally their base to slow down or stop any chance of collaboration on this international issue.

The Environment October 15th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we need to do is to stop finding excuses not to do anything. I am looking at my Conservative friends here. I remember a time not long ago where Stephen Harper saw the Kyoto protocol as being a big socialist conspiracy. It is one thing not to agree with the means and to say that the measures being put forward are misguided or could be improved on, and we can improve on what is being proposed, but to state that this is a socialist conspiracy is trying to rally a base against any measure, any action.

I remember in the last Parliament when the Conservatives were in government. We had two parties, the NDP and the Liberals, talking about cap and trade. Each time we mentioned cap and trade, the government said that we wanted a tax. Why? Because it knew that for its base a tax was a bad thing and nobody understood cap and trade, which is a market mechanism.

We need to have some good faith here. I am not saying that what my friends here are saying is in bad faith, but I saw bad faith in the last Parliament with respect to those issues. Unfortunately, when we try to attack the actions being taken, without saying we can improve on this but that it is a good base, we are not going anywhere.

This is why we need to stop saying that it is all or nothing and we need to start ensuring that actions will be undertaken, be it transportation electrification, for which we have the only critic in the House on this issue, or be it on the establishment of a price on carbon, for which there is an international consensus among economists. We need to start agreeing that we are going to move forward instead of fighting the initiatives. The future depends on it.

The Environment October 15th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Edmonton Strathcona.

I am very happy that this debate is happening. We, along with the member for Beaches—East York and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, requested an emergency debate on this very important topic.

The report released by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is extremely important because it highlights to our government and governments from around the world why it is crucial that we work together. The report also shows that we must stop looking for excuses to do nothing, as we have been doing for 30 years. This is exactly what happened in all of the discussions.

I am very happy to see that governments are getting together to debate these questions, as we saw in Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris. However, at the end of the day, governments are avoiding the only logical and ultimately responsible solution of setting binding targets. Every possible excuse comes up during negotiations. The meeting in Paris is probably the best example of that. People claim to want to go a certain way knowing full well that nothing will happen if they fail. We will not get anywhere like this.

Canada cannot go it alone. The NDP agrees with the arguments some members made to that effect. The question is not whether we should act alone. If we want to be a world leader in the fight against climate change, we need to set an example, decide to take effective action to resolve our own problem and work with other countries so that they do the same.

Where do we stand right now? I do not want to make this a partisan debate, but there are some things that I want to point out. The Paris Agreement initially proposed keeping the global temperature increase this century to two degrees. Canada worked to set that target at 1.5 degrees instead. In its most recent report, the IPCC confirmed that this was the target that we should be trying to meet. If Canada wants to do that, we need to lower our emissions to 325 million tonnes by 2030. However, according to the government's latest performance report, we will only be able to reduce them to 500 million tonnes, which is a far cry from the target.

That is a problem because we cannot require other countries to meet the Paris targets if we cannot do so ourselves. As an economist, I agree with the comments made to the effect that, if we act unilaterally, it could be harmful to our economy. That is true. That is why we all need to act. The IPCC is not a Canadian organization. It is an international organization.

We recognize the need to act and to get the necessary tools to do so. That means that we need to talk about certain things and start promoting them. That could be a carbon tax or an emissions ceiling. Economists agree that that is the way to go. My economist colleagues are likely familiar with the term “Pigovian tax”, which is a tax that seeks to change people's behaviour.

The problem right now is that we have no incentive to change our behaviour. Without incentives, people will not change their lifestyle. They might make some minor adjustments, but that will do nothing to stop us from crashing an burning sooner or later. Many Quebeckers know that we should drive electric cars, or at least very fuel efficient cars. People know that; surveys show that we need to head in that direction. Even so, more and more SUVs are being sold, and not just here but across North America.

There is a big difference between what people know they should be doing and what they actually do. Talking about the right thing to do and encouraging people to do it is not going to fix the problem.

I referred to the fact that for the last three years we had not done much because all nations of this world, including Canada, were finding ways at every conference not to do anything that could constrain them into action.

I read a newspaper article that quoted John Sununu, who used to be a member of the U.S. cabinet. He was one of the people responsible for the failed climate change negotiations of 1989. He said that political leaders at the time were just pretending they cared about the issue. They said the right things, but never did anything. In a recent interview, he said that the leaders did not want to make hard commitments that would cost them serious resources. In his opinion, that is where we are today.

Eddie Goldenberg, Jean Chrétien's chief of staff, said more or less the same thing about Canada's decision to sign the Kyoto protocol. In 2002, he said that they knew when they signed the protocol that it was extremely ambitious and that it would be difficult to meet the targets. He doing nothing would have been worse and that the government had to sign the protocol. He also said that the Liberal government of the day never seriously intended to do anything. That is the very problem the IPCC has called out in report after report.

We know that we are going to hit a wall. We have to do something. The solution will not be unilateral on the part of one government or another. We have to work together.

When every government finds an excuse, expresses good intentions without doing anything tangible about it, claims they are doing something when in reality they are not, I fear for future generations.

I have children aged nine and six. They are the ones who will suffer the consequences of climate change and the extreme events we are unfortunately getting used to seeing more and more. I am referring to the fires in British Columbia and the western U.S., as well as the heat waves. This summer, in Montreal, there were five or six heat waves that took the lives of 70 people. That never used to happen.

My part of the country, the Lower St. Lawrence, is known for its damp climate and rolling fog. However, we have experienced extreme drought conditions the last two summers. We had no rain for a month and a half in August and September. That was also the case this past summer. I was in Rimouski the entire summer and it rained maybe four or five days. For the past two years, farmers have only had one cut of hay per year because there has not been enough rain to have two cuts. There is no longer enough winter silage in eastern Quebec.

UPA, the Union des producteurs agricoles, is sounding the alarm and has pointed out that Quebec experienced the most serious drought in 50 years this past summer. We need to take action. Where are the concrete measures?

The Conservatives established greenhouse gas reduction targets, but did nothing to achieve them. The Liberal government is telling us that it is headed in the right direction and that it will support the Paris climate agreement, but it is not changing the objectives. If the Conservatives did not attain these objectives, and the Liberals are also failing, we are not in a position to provide assurances that Canada will do its part.

I am pretty sure that we are one of the only countries that is debating the matter in a legislative chamber this evening. If we do nothing, how can we set an example for other countries and ask them to do something? If we do nothing, how can we demonstrate leadership?

The transition to renewable energies and greener energy should not be viewed in terms of job losses and costs to consumers. This transition provides new opportunities and can be positive for us and, more importantly, for our children. If we do not embrace this vision, we will not be able to do much or claim to be a leader, which is the image Canada wants to project internationally at this time.

I encourage everyone in this House to stop making excuses for not doing what needs to be done. I encourage everyone to think carefully about what we can do immediately to reach our Paris targets. We need to work with our international partners so that they, too, can benefit from this transition, which must be done on behalf of future generations.

The Environment October 15th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He is an excellent orator.

Sadly, I have to tell him that his speeches clearly show that he is missing the point. He mentioned that emissions went down under the Conservatives, but that happened for two reasons that he will not be so keen to admit. The first is that we went through an economic crisis that reduced economic activity and therefore reduced our greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, he takes credit, or at least gives credit to his government, because he was not there at the time, for measures that were actually put in place by the provinces, not by the federal government. Even though the numbers back his claims, there is no cause and effect relationship between the previous Conservative government's actions and the results obtained during those years.

My colleague knows that I am an economist. I have been hearing him speak out against the carbon tax for months. The Nobel Prize in economics was just awarded to two researchers, William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, who specifically made the link between the need for a price on carbon and the effective reduction of our emissions, which led them to establish a correlation with our economic activity. It is an economic solution.

The solution proposed by the Conservatives, the sector-by-sector regulatory approach, did not work. In the end, it is more expensive. This was proven in the case of coal-fired emissions in particular. It is more expensive, but it is a hidden cost. Consumers pay it unknowingly. The Conservatives are not proposing any free solutions, but there is one solution that is internationally recognized and universally supported, and that is carbon pricing, whether it is a tax or a cap on emissions.

I would like to know what made my Conservative friend decide to oppose market solutions and transparent solutions and favour hidden solutions, which consumers end up paying for anyway.

Request for Emergency Debate October 15th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 52(2) to request an emergency debate, as my colleagues from Beaches—East York and Saanich—Gulf Islands have done.

It has been pointed out that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, has just published a special report on the consequences of a 1.5-degree rise in global temperatures. In this 728-page report, the United Nations committee confirms that the consequences of global warming of 1°C are already being felt: more extreme weather events, rising sea levels and decreasing sea ice in the Arctic. The report also stresses the crucial importance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees in order to avoid devastating impacts on ecosystems and human well-being.

To meet the required emission levels outlined by the panel, Canada's emissions will need to be reduced by almost half, far below our current performance. In fact, according to the IPCC, the world needs to reduce its GHG emissions by 45% by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change. The panel has made it clear that preventing a single extra degree of heat could make a life or death difference for millions across the globe. It also firmly states that our current course of action is simply not working.

Canada can rise to meet the challenge, but we need decisive leadership and strong actions. Canadians expect their representatives to come together to address the challenges facing our country and our world.

An emergency debate is required in order to allow parliamentarians to address this critical situation and to discuss how Canada can take a leadership role in this climate crisis.

It should also be noted that the date of my party’s next opposition day has still not been set. The IPCC report shows that immediate and far-reaching action is needed to combat climate change. I therefore respectfully ask you to plan an emergency debate on this matter as soon as possible.

The Environment October 15th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, instead of patting itself on the back, perhaps the government could acknowledge that it adopted the same greenhouse gas reduction targets as Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

The Conservatives deplore the carbon tax, and the Liberals have not been able to come to an agreement with the provinces.

A Nobel Prize in economics has been awarded to two researchers who demonstrated that carbon pricing is an effective means of fighting climate change. We should be able to move forward.

Our planet cannot wait for us to make a decision. We must set aside the half measures advocated by the government.

What good are government plans if they are not ambitious enough?

The Environment October 15th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, the climate crisis is real, and it carries a heavy cost.

Last week, IPCC experts called on all governments to act very quickly to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

The effects of climate change are already being felt. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, we have already experienced two summers of drought. In fact, according to the UPA, last summer was the worst drought in 50 years. We must act now.

Will the government agree, yes or no, to support our request for an emergency debate on the IPCC's findings?

International Trade October 3rd, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Instead of wilfully misleading the House, I will claim that he is misleading the House.