Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I readily acknowledge that natural gas is important to the economy, even if we will eventually have to move on from it.

When we talk about transition, we are not talking about throwing everything overboard from one day to the next. That is not what transition is about. We are doing things intelligently. There are sectors where you do not want to throw anyone out on the street tomorrow. We have to do things in a planned, strategic, and thoughtful way. That is the issue.

Now, my colleague acknowledged in his question that the oil and gas pipelines would not be built overnight. Basically, we are talking about something impossible and hypothetical, and I do not even understand why this solution is being mentioned at this time.

If the natural gas has to come from countries that my colleague describes as democratic, some countries, such as the United States, are in a much better position to ensure that supply in the short term because they have pipelines that can be connected to ports that allow for the exports.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is not realistic to think that hot air balloons filled with natural gas will be departing for Europe tomorrow. I understand that my colleague is asking whether this idea has some potential in the long term.

The answer is unfortunately no, because we need to think about transitioning in the long term.

Even if it were possible and realistic in the long term, would it be something we would want to do? I do not think so. I think we have moved on.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, we are discussing a Conservative motion today, and I will be speaking as the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade.

The Conservatives are conflating several ideas and issues. They legitimately condemn the invasion of Ukraine and affirm their solidarity, which makes total sense. I have nothing to add in this respect. However, they are also promoting the construction and approval of new natural gas pipelines.

The logic seems to be unassailable. If Russia supplies Europe with oil and gas, and if we want to punish Russia, Canada must present itself to Europe as another source of oil and gas. The problem is that the proposal is commercially unrealistic and politically and environmentally irresponsible.

The importance of oil and gas to the economy and the geostrategic location of Russia are undeniable. Oil and gas played a role in Russia’s recovery from the severe economic and social crisis that shook the country between 1990 and 1997 as a result of the harsh neoliberal policies put in place at that time.

The hike in the price of oil and gas resulted in significant tax revenues for the Russian government given the tax on exports, but it must be said that the economic policies put in place by Moscow at the time went beyond the single issue of oil and gas.

In Vladimir Putin’s second term in 2004, state-controlled companies in the energy sector, including Gazprom, Transneft and Rosneft, who are still operating today, took on a key role in the new dynamic. However, the Russian economy does not depend solely on its oil and gas industry. Its economic policies are diversified. We should not assume that this would have a miraculous effect, although cutting supply would undoubtedly have a considerable impact.

Canada boasts that it was the first country to ban the importation of Russian oil. That is rather convenient, because it has not imported Russian oil since 2016. That works just fine.

Let us get back to the motion. In a motion on Ukraine, the Conservatives are proposing that we encourage the approval and construction of natural gas pipelines. Listening to some of the Liberal members, we cannot be sure how our colleagues across the aisle will vote, but there appears to be agreement at least with the idea behind the motion.

Those who are following the parliamentary debates on television, whom we welcome, can see the words “Invasion of Ukraine and natural gas pipelines” at the bottom of their screen. That is the title they can see at the bottom.

It would be hard to find a more fallacious connection. The motion would have absolutely no impact on the conflict in Ukraine. Europe does not have an oil and natural gas supply problem. No country has called Canada for help with oil and gas.

In the case of oil, no one has mentioned the possibility of a shortage. The OPEC countries were very clear that they will be increasing production as needed. In the case of natural gas, the Russian banks, through which energies purchases are made, are excluded from the sanctions and can therefore do business as usual.

If Europe absolutely has to find other sources of oil and gas, some countries can take action in the short term. That is the case with the United States and Algeria, for example, who have gas pipelines connected to ports that could export to Europe, but that is not the case for Canada.

It would take several years before Canada could approve and build its gas pipelines and send a little liquefied natural gas to Europe. Does anyone think that the war in Ukraine will last 15 years? We hope not, of course. The proposal we are debating today consists essentially in selling a dream to Alberta. That is what we would call opportunism.

There is worse still. Today, in an article published in La Presse, Paul Journet reported that Russian oligarchs are invested in fossil fuels in western Canada. That means that the motion, if it were to be adopted, would help the Russian oligarchs. It is that simple.

Should we not have the same courage as the Europeans and seize their assets? That, however, would involve going against Canada’s worship of oil and gas.

In the short term, then, the proposal is insignificant in scope. However, one can defend the idea for the medium and long term. I am not saying that I agree, because I do not. I am saying that it is defensible. That said, if one chooses to defend it, it is on the condition that one stops pretending that there is a link with the war in Ukraine. It is also on the condition that we are all prepared to live with the consequences. What are the consequences?

First, there are environmental consequences, because natural gas is a fossil fuel, an energy of the past. I readily admit that we need it today. Does it make more sense to see a future over the medium or long term based on natural gas or do we feel the energy transition will have to be completed in the next 15 years? Personally, like my colleagues, I choose the second option.

Second, there are political consequences, because the proposal assumes that Russia will have to be isolated from Europe in the long run. I would hope that, should peace be re-established, the goal would not be to stigmatize, threaten, humiliate and impoverish Russia in the long term. What would happen, if we did that?

That would certainly not be in Canada's best interests because if Russia is isolated it will jump right into China's arms. That is the gamble we have been making for years and look at how it has turned out. Russia will, of course, align itself with China. Is that what we truly want?

The fundamentally hawkish and aggressive approach the Conservatives have taken in this motion will ultimately serve the interests of China. Although the Conservatives claim to want to isolate these so-called rival powers, they will ultimately ensure that these powers become best friends. Is that the right thing to do? Obviously not.

We expected to see Canada use the crisis to promote its fossil fuels. We nevertheless hoped it would be a little more subtle than this. Right now, Canada is about as subtle as a bull in a china shop.

Let us think about the transition. Let us come up with a solution that will show some real solidarity with the people of Ukraine. This means that we will have to think outside the box and avoid the echo chambers, because this proposal will get us nowhere.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for defending the Conservative motion that the Bloc Québécois does not support because it does nothing to respond to the crisis in Ukraine. That is something we need to keep in mind.

Neither Europe nor Ukraine has asked for oil or gas from Canada, namely Alberta. In the short term—because we all hope this crisis will be short-lived—there are many countries that are infinitely better placed than Canada to supply gas, countries that already have pipelines and access to ports to export to Europe.

The only way the Conservative motion would produce results is in the long term, if Russia was permanently isolated, which would push Russia into China's camp.

Is that what we want? No.

Does my colleague understand that this war would have to last 15 years before this solution could be implemented?

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2022]

During its first term in office, the current government promised to reform the electoral system in order to make it more proportional, but that promise was quickly broken.

Of course we were in favour of electoral reform, and I have no reason to believe that we would not support it in the future, but on one condition, of course. We will not automatically give our approval because not all electoral reform will necessarily be good. We will not say yes or no to the broad concept of electoral reform. We will examine all the details as soon as a proposal is put forward. For now, it does not seem as though electoral reform is even on the table.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague criticize me for promoting the fundamental objective of the Bloc Québécois, which is Quebec's independence.

I also heard him fiercely standing up for his fellow citizens. That is what we are doing. He was elected to represent his fellow citizens, just like my colleagues and I were elected to represent ours. We were elected as separatists, knowing that this is not a place where we will be influencing a separatist movement.

I want to reassure my colleague that we also want to invite the Quebec National Assembly to launch a separation bid. We are the first to be in favour of it. I ask my colleague to recognize that we were elected as separatists and that it is natural for us to use our platform and our access to federal debates to promote our cause among our fellow citizens. What is wrong with that?

We were elected without hiding our objective from anyone. It is clear. I do not want anyone to criticize us for bringing it forward. If my colleague is sick and tired of always hearing about the needs of Quebec, I hope he will join us in advocating for our independence.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I think that basically, every province can fight its own battles. I have no problem with that. If Nova Scotia and New Brunswick want to make an issue of this, that can be discussed, no problem, on condition that Quebec does not lose its democratic weight in the House. That is what needs to be taken into account: if the weight is increased for other provinces, then logically, it should be increased for Quebec as well.

Yes, there may be provinces that have lost some democratic weight in the past, but the fundamental issue is the claim that Quebec is a nation. This was recognized by the House. Will these words ever have any meaning? It is time to prove it.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada recently proposed a plan to redraw the federal electoral map and give Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia four more seats while taking one seat away from Quebec. This electoral map reform will forever make us, the people of Quebec, a negligible quantity in the Canadian system.

While Quebec currently holds 78 out of 338 seats in the current House of Commons, if the proposed reform were to go ahead, Quebec would occupy 77 out of 342 seats in this hypothetical future federal Parliament. Since votes in Parliament are often close, as we have seen on several occasions during this Parliament, Quebec's political weight would be reduced, as it would account for 22% of the total number of members.

The trend will be clear. As Quebec's demographic significance decreases, its influence in the House will dwindle away to nothing.

Mathematics aside, continuously reducing Quebec's importance within the institution that makes the laws in this country will have real consequences. Quebec will have less and less say. Its interests and values will be more and more diluted, to the benefit of the interests and values of the rest of Canada. Is this not the real consequence of our presence within this system, which has a pattern of perpetually marginalizing us?

Prior to the poorly named Confederation, when French Canadians were more numerous than English Canadians, we enjoyed equal representation: Two peoples unequal in number but with the same number of representatives, for as long as French Canadians were in the minority.

Then along came the 1867 regime. French Canadians were fewer in number, so parliamentary representation became proportional. It is handy when the conqueror decides what kind of system to set up.

In 1867, our ongoing marginalization was baked into the system. In 1867, the Province of Quebec held 36% of the seats in the House. Every time the electoral boundaries were redrawn thereafter, our weight diminished: 28% in 1947, 25% in 1999, 23% in 2015 and, soon, 22%.

As time goes by, Quebec will become more deeply submerged in the red tide. As time goes by, Quebec will command less and less fear and respect in Ottawa. As time goes by, we will have to waste energy trying to explain ourselves, make ourselves understood and gain respect. We will have to go to great lengths just to make ourselves a small part of this country's debates.

That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill in this session of Parliament to create a “nation clause” that would guarantee that the number of members from Quebec would never be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House. That would be a strict minimum.

In 2006, the Canadian government tried to distract Quebec by labelling it as a “nation within a united Canada”. Is it not time to show that words have meaning and they are not just something to be used in the House? Will the House adopt our motion so that this is not just a tool to distract Quebeckers? At least this motion will limit the damage.

Let us make one thing perfectly clear. Quebec has never wielded any power in Ottawa. It has not and never will. Canada is controlled by another nation. Even so-called French power is just smoke and mirrors. Even though some Canadian leaders have come from Quebec, their actions and decisions will always be subject to the law of the Canadian majority, and rightly so. The Quebec nation will always be at the mercy of the decisions the majority imposes on us.

The only parliament where the Quebec nation holds 100% of the seats is the Quebec National Assembly. We have lost count of how many unanimous motions of the Quebec National Assembly the House of Commons will not even deign to mention or discuss.

If “form a nation” means anything, the legislature solely dedicated to representing that nation should be able to say no to laws it does not want, such as the Emergencies Act, which Quebec unanimously rejected. That legislature should also be able to pass 100% of its laws without worrying they will be ripped apart by courts enforcing a constitutional order it never signed or consented to, as was the case with the Charter of the French Language, which is now a mere shadow of its former self.

A nation should also be able to stop worrying that its democratic choices, such as Bill 21, the secularism bill, will be subject to a challenge paid for by a state in which it is just a minority. It should be able to choose its own policies, policies that reflect its values and interests in terms of culture, justice, social solidarity, the environment, energy, international relations and trade agreements.

When Quebec's National Assembly votes unanimously in favour of increasing health transfers, it should not have to constantly beg a Parliament where Quebec will soon have just 22% of the seats to mercifully send us a portion of the taxes we pay.

Being a minority, and a shrinking one at that, in a foreign regime forces us to waste our potential and accept endless ridiculous compromises. Those compromises will end up compromising us as our weight shrinks. That is the fate that awaits us as part of Canada.

The regime is increasingly depriving us of our ability to decide for ourselves what we want for ourselves. This regime is beyond reform. Is it better to be 100% yourself or 22% of someone else? Is it better to be a majority or a minority? For me and my colleagues, to ask that question is to answer it.

We want Quebec to achieve independence because Canada is not our country. Its choices are its own, not ours. Independence is a question of democracy. There are certainly independent countries where the people are not free, but there is no such thing as a free people who do not have independence. It is as simple as that. The math is very straightforward.

A nation that is deprived of its political tools is a neutralized community that is condemned to powerlessness. That is the real problem with the electoral redistribution.

We must leave the Canadian state with no rancour because it is not our state. We are not at home in Canada and its institutions. We are tired of the Canadian state undermining our democratic choices in the name of a constitutional regime that has been imposed on us. We are tired of living with societal choices that are not our own, choices that are often even contrary to the ones we would make in the fullness of freedom.

Quebec's true history will only begin with the realization of our own country, one that is secular, just, humane, fundamentally free, where we will no longer need to ask for permission from anyone to make the choices that are most consistent with our values and our fundamental interests, in other words, the Republic of Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed and valued colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I had four place names to remember, I who also have four names.

Elections Canada recently proposed a plan to redraw the federal electoral map—

[Emergencies Act, February 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

To sum up the situation, the crowdfunding platforms that are the main reason for the use of the Emergencies Act are already governed by the provinces. There are already laws in place that make it possible to arrest people for a crime or an offence. Thank goodness. Everyone is saying that the siege is illegal. The law already provides for sanctions in that regard, as well as for uttering threats, possession of unauthorized weapons and calls for insurrection.

I have a question for my colleague. What is the point of invoking the Emergencies Act if there are already conventional legal tools and institutions that could have been used over the past two weeks but were not?