Julie Vignola

[Business of Supply, December 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion before us today is the kind of Conservative motion we have had to debate since this session began. The message this motion sends is one of goodness, of awareness-raising of the financial difficulties that people are facing now. These struggles are real. Consumer prices have gone up. I have no doubt about my colleagues' goodness and desire to raise awareness on this subject. I have no doubts whatsoever, and I want to clarify that.

That said, when we take the time to analyze the motion, looking at its contents in greater detail and checking the facts, what we find under this lid of goodness and awareness-raising is a pot of soup filled to the brim with pieces of political and electoral interests, bits of misuse of information and incomplete facts.

The first premise of the motion sets out some frightening numbers for farmers, who are already struggling to get a sufficient income. According to this first premise, farmers will have to pay $150,000 a year in carbon taxes when they triple. That is a huge, terrifying amount. However, the motion fails to mention some information. For example, by 2030, the amount of the carbon tax will triple from what it is now. Consequently, the motion does not refer to a current or even near event. It also fails to mention that by 2030, a host of transitional measures will be in place to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Yes, taxes are increasing, but if our GHG production is reduced, the amount to be paid in 2030 should be roughly the same as today.

Now let us talk about some inconsistencies. Concerning the first point, today's motion fails to mention one very important aspect. It boggles the mind that it could have been left out. I am talking about the fact that the Conservative Party, namely, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, introduced Bill C-234, which is intended specifically to remove the carbon tax on agricultural facilities. The bill is now in committee, and everyone agrees that it should progress quickly. In short, it seems as though the right hand did not know what the left one was doing when it was time to write this motion today. The first premise of the motion could be described as misinformation, since the information contained therein is incomplete.

I want to take my colleagues back to their intro to philosophy class in college. Disinformation is caused by three main elements. The first is omitting to provide all the information necessary to understand the facts. That is what we have here. The second is distracting the reader from the information. That is what the motion does by blaming all the world's woes on the carbon tax, when rising consumer prices are the result of a multitude of factors. The third is deliberately sharing false information. The good news is that this is not the case here, but we do have two of three elements of misinformation.

The next few premises also contain big numbers, ones that are accurate. Nevertheless, because of the first premise, we might believe that the carbon tax alone is causing consumer prices to rise. However, as I just said, consumer price increases are caused by a multitude of factors, not just the carbon tax.

Now let us talk about what the motion calls for. The first two points are about eliminating the carbon tax on farm fuels. As I just explained, Bill C-234 addresses that. The right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing. The third point is about eliminating the carbon tax on fertilizer. Bill C-234 does not cover that, which is too bad. A bill to that effect could be brought in quite quickly with all the goodwill that I know Parliament is capable of showing. Having said that, farmers are suffering the consequences of the sanctions imposed on Russia and its fertilizer exports. That needs to be addressed. Those sanctions have nothing to do with the carbon tax. They were imposed because of the war. The fourth point is about eliminating the carbon tax on transportation. What kind of transportation are we talking about?

It cannot be agricultural transportation, because that is already covered by the first point about farm fuels. Therefore, it must mean other modes of transportation. Does it mean heavy trucks, trains, planes?

In the case of trucks, technologies are already in place to reduce the pollution they create. Thanks to these technologies, which include diesel exhaust fluid, trucks will be emitting far less pollution by 2030, when the carbon tax will be $170 a tonne. Aircraft technology is also changing a lot in terms of fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. That just leaves trains. We need to figure out how to move beyond Canada's 19th-century rail system. I dream of high-speed electromagnetic trains, not high-frequency rail. I dream of real modern trains. That would be so amazing.

Lastly, the fifth point of the motion is overly vague. It calls for the carbon tax to be cancelled on all other appropriate aspects of the food supply system. What are all those other aspects? Does that mean electricity, coal, factories, oil industries? I have no idea. I will not dwell on this point any longer than necessary, because it is as blurry as a desert mirage.

As I said, inflation has multiple causes: labour shortages affecting agricultural businesses and companies in general; natural disasters, such as floods, drought, hurricanes and fires; corporate wage increases; and war, which we have to include in the list. By blaming the increase in consumer prices on the carbon tax alone, this motion blatantly oversimplifies a far more complex phenomenon, and that oversimplification amounts to disinformation.

There are viable and responsible solutions that I would have loved to hear my colleagues suggest. First of all, pensions could be increased to help seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. They should also be allowed to work, if they so choose, without being doubly taxed. They pay more taxes than a family, when they have already paid taxes their entire lives. Furthermore, their pension gets clawed back once their income reaches a certain threshold. That makes no sense. Second, a program could be implemented to support the people hardest hit by rising gas prices, such as farmers and truckers. I want to mention that since these people are dependent on gasoline, they are also at the mercy of fluctuations in gasoline prices. As part of the transition, we must provide these people with solutions so that they are no longer subject to fluctuations. Third, the supply chain could be stabilized by strengthening critical links and promoting local production.

Of course, Quebec does not pay a carbon tax because it participates in the carbon market. However, I would like to remind members, as did my colleague, that when Quebec became a member of this market it tried to convince all Canadian provinces to join as well, but it was met with outright refusal. Quebec was alone in finding this to be a good idea. Quebec was also alone in 1982 when the provinces stabbed it in the back by going back on their promise. Quebec was alone on child care, as well; Canada's provinces insulted us for 20 years by saying that Quebec could not afford it, but it suddenly become a good idea when the federal government agreed to pay for it. Quebec was also alone in standing up for aluminum compared to steel, the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries, and others.

Given that the premises of the motion are incomplete, that a bill to provide farmers with relief will be passed and implemented, we cannot vote in favour of this motion.

[Public Services and Procurement, December 7th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in light of China's political interference in political party financing, the espionage at Hydro-Québec, the Winnipeg laboratory and the secret police stations, we would have thought that the RCMP would have started monitoring Chinese operations in Canada, but no, China has been monitoring RCMP operations.

The company has been charged with 21 espionage offences in the United States and the government did not even conduct a security check. The contract could have been awarded to a company in Boucherville, but no. It was given to China instead of Quebec.

Seriously, are they doing this on purpose?

[Public Services and Procurement, December 7th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, barely a year ago, the government awarded Sinclair Technologies, a company held in part by China, a contract to secure RCMP communications and the confidentiality of the Prime Minister's communications.

This contract gives a Chinese government-owned company access to the RCMP's classified frequency. That would be like asking Dr. No to create gadgets for James Bond. It is as ridiculous as it is reckless. It is simply impossible to believe.

Will the government immediately cancel this contract?

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, in this bill, as in other budget bills, there is a glaring omission, namely health transfers for Quebec and Canada's provinces. This has been a glaring omission for 30 years in Canada.

Does my colleague think that it is high time Canada respected its own Constitution and its own constitutional agreements by increasing health transfers, with the understanding that increasing health transfers is a federal duty and that health transfers, in emergency situations such as a pandemic, are also a federal duty?

It is “and” not “or”.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, there are many things missing from this bill. I like it when we can see both what is missing and what is good. I make the effort to do that, even when it is not so easy and there is something in a bill that I do not like very much.

I would ask my colleague to do this exercise. What is in this bill that is good for his riding, even if the bill could arguably be improved?

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the environment is vital to our lives. Without the environment, we would not be able to eat, breathe or build ourselves a shelter.

I understand that oil is a major source of energy and revenue in my hon. colleague's region. That said, we must consider the situation as a whole. Any attack on the environment is an attack on people's health. Does my colleague believe that it is important to implement better transition measures for workers, youth and industries in his region and others to ensure an adequate, healthy energy transition for all?

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. It is high time the government stopped discriminating against our seniors so much and start giving them the support they need. In my riding, I see seniors rummaging through the garbage. That is unacceptable. It seems obvious to me.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to answer my colleague, but it will be complicated, since I do not think like a Liberal or a Conservative.

That being said, when I invest in something, I expect a significant, worthwhile return. For example, the Liberals invested $1 billion to combat tax havens, but in the end, they were forced to create a law in order to be able to collect $600 million. I do not think that is a very cost-effective program that was properly administered, even if the government says that this issue is dragging on in court. There is a way of doing better for all citizens and for everyone's well-being.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, we agree. Yes, the tax credit for multi-generational homes is good for communities and families. It is hard to be against that.

Nevertheless, there are times when parents need to be placed in specialized homes. There also needs to be support for that, and the Quebec government and the provincial governments need health transfers, which are absent once again, as they have been for the past 30 years.

[Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, December 5th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a bill that would go down in history and really support all of the vulnerable people in Quebec and Canada, and it is not Bill C-32.

Studying any bill, let alone one as lengthy as Bill C-32, is a serious responsibility for all parliamentarians, not just opposition members. It is in the interest of the population. Everything we do, every decision we make has repercussions. If a bill is not studied properly, we might miss details that will impact the people we represent.

The purpose of the debate at second reading is to point out the aspects of a bill that need to be changed and improved. Those changes are made in committee. Unfortunately, the report on Bill C-32, which is over 100 pages long, was adopted on division in just 20 minutes. It was therefore impossible for any parliamentarian, from the government or the opposition, to propose amendments and improvements and have them adopted in the interest of the population.

A bill often contains good things, more worrisome things and sometimes even legislative gaps, regardless of which political party introduced it. That is the case with Bill C-32.

One of the good things about Bill C-32 is that it phases out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. It is important to know what a flow-through share is to understand why this is a generally a decent measure. It does not go far enough and it is weak, but it is a start.

Flow-through shares are shares issued to new investors. They give companies the funding they need to for exploration activities, while giving investors an equity stake in the company and tax deductions for new money spent on exploration and development. That simply means that there are fewer opportunities for companies to find new funding for exploration. Without money for exploration, it is impossible to look for, find and develop resources.

The problem is that flow-through shares are generally used by small companies that have very little money. This measure does not affect big companies, especially since the government continues, time after time, to allow these big companies to conduct exploration activities in very fragile areas that are supposed to be protected.

A second good thing about this bill is the anti-flipping tax on housing. If someone buys a house and wants to sell it within a year, whether it has been renovated or not, they will have to pay more tax. This is good because it will help reduce inflation and the artificial increase in house prices. We cannot complain about that.

Another good thing about this bill is the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. Today, people have a choice. They can put their parents in a seniors' residence, bring them into their home or build them a small apartment. I do not know about my colleagues' parents, but knowing mine, they would not want to live under the same roof as me. It is not that I am a bad person. We all have our habits. That is normal, and most people do. Having the money to convert a single-family home into a multi-generational home is ideal. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for this since 2015. Everyone gets to live in their own home, while the homeowners take care of their parents and look after their health. It is the best of both worlds. That is expensive, so the tax credit is welcome for those who want to reconfigure their homes.

Bill C-32 makes minor amendments to the Income Tax Act, which is 3,355 pages long. It is a massive piece of legislation. It would be nice to see a thorough review of this legislation in order to simplify it and give it more teeth. I salute the accountants and tax experts who have to review the 3,355 pages of this legislation. They have my respect.

I will now turn to the areas that are a little more worrisome. The economic situation is very troubling right now, with inflation and a possible recession on the horizon.

Inflation is worrisome for students, low-income workers, seniors and others who are on a fixed income. It is worrisome because, thanks to inflation, these people do not have a penny to spare. They are having a harder time buying the essentials. I am not talking about a three-week trip to Cancun. I am talking about putting bread and butter on the table, getting new shoes when the old ones get holes in them, buying a coat and mittens. I am talking about the basics. With inflation, people on a fixed income are unable to afford all that. They have practically been abandoned except for a $650 benefit for their teeth. They have no more money. Prices are going up. This puts more pressure on non-profit organizations, including those working to improve food security.

The recession is also worrisome because it means job losses. Some might say that is not a problem since there is a labour shortage and those who lose their jobs will find another one. That is true in cities, but in more remote regions with less economic diversity, this may cause a problem. We cannot ask people in the regions who lose their jobs to move to the city. That is not better. That is not a solution. They have been overlooked.

There is nothing in this bill about supply chains. As everyone knows, Quebec and Canada are suppliers of natural resources. We extract our natural resources, send them away for processing and then buy them back at a hefty price. We should consolidate our supply chains. That would be a visionary undertaking. During the pandemic, people talked about the importance of doing that, but this bill offers nothing in that department.

I want to talk about legislative gaps. In 1999, when my daughter was born, I collected $72 a week in EI benefits. I was lucky. That was before the Harper reform. I was among those entitled to EI benefits. Now, only 40% of claimants actually collect benefits. Had that been the case in 1999, I would have gotten nothing. Even back in 1999, $72 towards diapers was not much. Luckily, I got help from my mother. This bill offers nothing in the way of support and no changes to EI despite the government's promises. This is a legislative gap, one that must be closed quickly. This is urgent, especially given the combined effects of inflation and a potential recession, which will be seriously painful.

Active workers are not the only ones getting a raw deal because of a legislative gap. Seniors are also affected, especially senior women. Bill C-32 does nothing to enhance their pensions. Yes, it is true that seniors who worked for 30 or 35 years are now living longer, and their retirement funds must now last 30 or 40 years. I understand the 75-and-up policy, but it is not acceptable anymore. Seniors 65 to 74 years of age are also living longer. Senior women 65 to 74 years of age are the most affected by the government's refusal to increase their pensions. They have no savings, as they earned very little when they were working. The refusal to increase the pensions of those 65 to 74 years of age is not only discriminatory, I would go so far as to say that it is misogynistic. I am certain that no government in this place wants to be called that. The government needs to rethink this.

To sum up, the bill to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement contains a few good things. Once upon a time, there was a bill that did not change much. Let us not forget that parliamentarians were muzzled. They were not allowed to make amendments that would benefit the public, especially those most at risk of suffering the damaging effects of inflation and the recession. For the sake of current and future generations, we need to think about taking action to prevent the worst from happening. Let us not forget that our role is to stand up for the dignity of the most vulnerable, not to erase them through inaction and a lack of vision.