Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 27 of 27
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-19 15:16 [p.29394]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has no credibility when it comes to the environment. Just 24 hours after declaring a climate emergency, he gave the green light to the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will produce more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Quebec's industries combined.
He is apologizing by saying that he is going to invest $500 million in green energy, but he is investing $14 billion in pollution.
How is the Prime Minister going to fight climate change by investing our money in a project that creates more pollution than all of Quebec?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-06-17 19:15 [p.29224]
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about young people being environmentally responsible, saying that that is the way to go. I would just remind him that a network called the Établissements verts Brundtland, comprising several green schools in Quebec, was created in the 1990s. People have already started adopting environmentally responsible behaviour. However, that is not going to solve the climate crisis. The elephant in the room is oil and gas, fossil fuels, the oil sands.
What could the Conservatives propose when they want to develop the oil sands at all costs? What could a Conservative government propose to resolve the climate crisis or, at least, to start working on it?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-30 13:58 [p.28291]
Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the governing party in the Quebec National Assembly unveiled its plan for reducing Quebec's dependence on oil by 40% by 2030.
Hospitals, schools and public buildings will no longer be heated by oil. The Quebec government is going to have a fleet of electric vehicles. It is taking action. The only thing slowing down Quebec's shift to a green economy and preventing it from taking real climate action is, as always, Ottawa, which wants pipelines at all costs, prioritizes dirty oil and is willing to put wetlands at risk to move its gasoline.
Whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, it amounts to the same thing. It is always the same targets, the same obsession with the oil sands, the same handouts to big oil and the same cozy relationships with oil tycoons.
All the parties in Quebec know that serious action is needed right away. Quebeckers know this, too. Unfortunately, Ottawa still prefers negligence. Is it not time for Ottawa to wake up?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 16:02 [p.28076]
Madam Speaker, if we are now talking about the climate emergency we are currently facing, it is because, year after year, every time the alarm sounded, Canada hit the snooze button. Ottawa has known for decades that, without a transition to green energy, we were heading towards a wall. We are just about there.
I say “we” because Quebec can try all it wants, but as long as Ottawa keeps on polluting, the global result will be the same. The planet is warming and the climate is destabilizing.
A few weeks ago, the NDP wanted to get one up on the Liberals with a motion on the climate emergency. Now the Liberals want to get one up on the Conservatives with a motion on the climate emergency. While they try to outdo one another, no one is really doing anything to address the issue, even though we have known about it for years. That is how climate destabilization has turned into a climate emergency.
Let's go back in time a bit. On December 19, 2002, Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol on climate change. That was almost a generation ago. A fine motion was moved in the House and eloquent speeches were made on the urgent need to act, similar to what we are seeing today, but then, that was it.
David Anderson was environment minister at the time in Jean Chrétien's government. He was tasked with developing a plan to meet the Kyoto targets, but it was a huge failure. Emissions rose by 20% instead of decreasing by 6%.
Mr. Anderson gave a long interview in February 2007, after he quit politics, to explain his failure. What he had to say now sounds like a warning. While he was minister, everyone claimed to want to combat climate change, but everything fell apart when it came time for real action.
There is good reason to take action when a country is the largest consumer of energy per capita and the second-largest GHG emitter per capita, but there is also a lot of resistance. This means that as soon as he proposed something, someone would be unhappy and the measure would be stalled.
Sure, some business somewhere may have to make changes if the government takes action. This was the case with the Liberals, and also with the NDP, which was afraid of squabbles with the unions. I remind members that oil and auto workers were pushing hard against Kyoto. The Ontario auto sector was, in large part, made up of gas guzzlers like GMC trucks and Ford Crown Victorias.
Each Canadian produces twice as much GHG emissions than a Quebecker. If it cost more to pollute and were more profitable to not pollute, Canadians would be in trouble and Quebeckers would hit the jackpot. That is why nothing ever gets done, despite the rhetoric.
Let me again reference Mr. Anderson, the former minister. When he was listing all the problems, he said that the only leader whose support of Kyoto never wavered was the Bloc Québécois leader. That was true at the time, and it is even more true today. Finding a policy that suits Quebec without hurting western Canada is impossible.
As a result, any pan-Canadian party that aspires to govern has to cater to both sides. Having a coherent policy becomes impossible. It cannot bring forward sound policy, because it would favour Quebec too much. That is why we are currently in a full-blown climate crisis. That is why the Bloc Québécois had to sign the citizens' universal declaration of climate emergency. The Bloc was the first party in the Parliament of Canada to do so. It remains to be seen as to whether we will remain the only party to do so, for the same reasons that have been motivating the same Canadian parties to continue to accept the same compromises for decades.
As I said earlier, there have been quite a few motions. The NDP moved one to try to corner the Liberals on the climate emergency, and the Liberals moved one to try to corner the Conservatives. However, when it comes time to make a personal commitment, no federal leader, apart from Yves-François Blanchet, has acknowledged the urgent need to sign the citizens' universal declaration of climate emergency. No federal leader, apart from Yves-François Blanchet, has acknowledged the urgent need to support the massive citizen engagement around this issue. No one else has acknowledged the urgent need to support the 365 municipalities that have signed the citizens' universal declaration of climate emergency and that already have an action plan. Also, on May 14, 2019, the organizers of the declaration wrote to the Minister of Environment asking her to table the declaration in question in the House.
They wrote that it is time to walk the talk. We are still waiting. It seems the Liberals are struggling with the kind of frictions one should come to expect when attempting at all costs to keep Quebec within a dysfunctional federation that does not serve our interests.
We agree with every part of the motion we are debating today. We know that climate change is a real crisis that impacts the environment, biodiversity and even human health. That is undeniable. However, we also know that while they were coming to this conclusion, the Liberals were also green-lighting nearly $20 billion in investments in fossil fuels. Furthermore, we know that the Liberals are following the same plan as the Conservatives, who sometimes think they are living in the age of the dinosaurs.
The targets use 2005 as the base year, whereas Quebec and the rest of the world use 1990. Only the “ROC”, meaning the rest of Canada, and the United States use 2005. This practice hides 15 years of free pollution for oil companies.
We also know that, if current trends continue, these “Liberal-Conservative” targets will not be reached. That is not the way to handle a real crisis. The Prime Minister is fiddling while the world burns.
We know that we feel the effects of climate change. Just ask the thousands of Quebeckers who still cannot return home because of the flooding. The cities and towns of Quebec need $4 billion to deal with climate change. Instead of giving them $4 billion, Ottawa spent $4.5 billion buying the Trans Mountain pipeline in western Canada.
We know that climate change is having an impact on coastal communities. Shoreline erosion is a serious problem in Quebec. The shores of the Magdalen Islands are disappearing into the Gulf of St. Lawrence at a rate of 60 centimetres a year. Highways 138 and 132 are under constant pressure from the changing climate. In Montérégie, people are losing their seawall and fear that their homes will end up in the water. When the government talks about the coasts it does not mention erosion. It talks about a coast-to-coast pipeline to export even more oil from the oil sands.
Lastly, we know that the goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5°C. In Paris they said we need to limit warming to 2°C, but ideally to 1.5°C. Now people are saying we must not exceed 1.5°C and we have already reached 1.1°C. We also know that Canada is getting further and further away from these targets instead of getting closer. If the world followed Canada's lead, global warming would reach 3°C by the end of the century, a threshold that Climate Transparency calls catastrophic.
Making a commitment to protect the environment is about more than voting in favour of a motion to ease our conscience. We need to firmly believe that everyone has the right to clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. The fight against climate change is the Liberal government's biggest broken promise. I was in Paris in 2015, and I clearly remember that historic agreement. I saw the government make promises to the entire world. I felt as though I was participating in a historic event. Cities, federated states, scientists, banks, NGOs, businesses and others were all there. Everyone was there and they all sincerely believed that something had changed. Denial was no longer an option. I heard the Minister of Environment say that we needed to stop talking and start taking action.
The Paris Agreement was supposed to be a beginning, not an end. However, there is a good chance that nothing will come of it here because Canada does not have the courage to turn that commitment into an bold, ambitious, radical plan, rather than just a simple motion to keep Parliament talking. Quebeckers will not be fooled.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 16:13 [p.28077]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that reminder about the NDP motion, which we supported, just as we support the Liberal motion.
The problem is acting on those motions. In Canada, it is impossible to do anything that is in the interest of both Quebec, which has clean hydro, and the West. In debate, we have seen and heard the Conservatives and the Liberals lob that one back and forth, to no end. It is impossible. As Mr. Anderson, the former Liberal environment minister, concluded, whenever it is time to take action, nothing gets done.
The NDP motion was a good one, with constructive, concrete measures, but it is still clear to us that nothing can actually get done.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-05-27 16:14 [p.28077]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which gives me a chance to talk about the Conservatives' infamous targets, the ones the Liberals copied. The targets use 2005 as the base year, whereas Quebec and all the other countries are using 1990 as the base year. By opting for the Conservatives' targets, they are basically ignoring 15 years of pollution, especially oil companies' emissions.
In other words, no, I do not think a national government is useful, if all it does is adopt the same targets and fail to meet even those—and all signs point to it not meeting those targets.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-04-09 13:59 [p.26874]
Mr. Speaker, the fight against climate change is the challenge of the century.
When we celebrate Earth Day on April 22, we will have to remember that, in spite of the speeches, Canada is on the wrong side of history. Ten years ago, it promised to the G20 that it would gradually phase out its fossil fuel subsidies. Not only has Ottawa failed to even begin this process, but, since 2015, it has committed an additional $19 billion to the oil industry. In fact, Canada is having a negative impact on the rest of the world. The Global Footprint Network estimates that every year humanity exceeds the earth's capacity to absorb pollution and begins living on credit on August 1. If everyone's statistics matched Canada's, overshoot day would arrive as early as March and we would spend three quarters of the year mortgaging the future.
One thing is clear to Quebec: Canada is a petro-state and and an adversary in the fight against climate change.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-02-26 14:00 [p.25795]
Mr. Speaker, young people in Montreal and around the world are calling on the government to get serious about the climate crisis, but the federal government does not seem to be getting the message.
The National Energy Board proved it by publishing its report on the Trans Mountain pipeline project, which will export the dirtiest oil in the world. The English-only report found that Trans Mountain will cause a spike in greenhouse gas emissions, threaten already endangered killer whales, and adversely affect the cultural practices of indigenous peoples, who, by the way, were not adequately consulted on this. However, the NEB is saying yes to Trans Mountain, just like it has been saying yes to pipelines for the past 60 years. That is what a petro-state is all about.
On March 15, there will be a global youth climate strike. Students will be protesting in Montreal and elsewhere, and I invite the public to join them.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2019-02-07 15:02 [p.25406]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can shout from rooftops all over the world that he is a champion of climate action, but that does not make it true.
The truth is that the big oil sands polluters have the government—and the official opposition, as well—in their pockets. My question is the following.
Does the Minister of the Environment think that investing $19 billion of public money in dirty oil is a good way to combat climate change?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2018-11-26 15:00 [p.23920]
Mr. Speaker, there is no green shift in the government's economic update. Once again, it is subsidizing big oil instead of developing green transportation.
That is not surprising. According to Oil Change International, over the past five years, Ottawa has spent $62 billion on fossil fuels, compared to $5 billion on clean energy. It kind of feels like the Conservatives are still in power.
When will the federal government stop wasting Quebeckers' money on businesses that are speeding up climate change?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2018-11-26 15:01 [p.23920]
Mr. Speaker, we cannot base our economy on fossil fuels. The government does not seem to get that.
If the government does not go green, we will be headed for disaster and our young people will pay the price. That is why a youth environmental organization called ENvironnement JEUnesse brought a class action against Ottawa today. They say the government is breaking its climate change promises. That is what it has come to: our young people are so worried about their future that they are suing the federal government.
Do our young people really have to take the government to court to drive home the point that it has to stop subsidizing big oil?
View Louis Plamondon Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at what the hon. member is saying. She proposed that we wait for other countries to take action before we do because we have already done too much. I think that the oil sands are one of the biggest polluters in the world. We have some work ahead of us if we want to work with other countries. Many countries in Europe are doing better than we are here in Canada and Quebec.
We have to make an effort. To hear her speak I cannot help but think that if I lived in a small village and I told myself that I would not do any volunteer work unless everyone else did, then nothing would get done. We have to take initiative. That is the strength of a nation. I hope that the Conservative Party will switch gears quickly.
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2018-10-15 20:52 [p.22386]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her inspiring presentation.
Our colleagues opposite said that Mr. Harper's greenhouse gas reduction targets were not good enough. Then off they went to Paris, where they masqueraded as champions of the environment only to adopt those same targets. Now it seems they will not even meet those targets. They are still financing pipeline projects; they are even making Quebec pay for those projects. The only way forward is with a plan to reduce our dependence on oil. We need to take action. People say we have to be realistic, and the IPCC report is realistic. Reality is right here, right now. We need to move. We need to set more ambitious targets, and I think we need to cut oil production, not increase it indefinitely and pay for new pipelines.
In my colleague's opinion, how much more ambitious should our greenhouse gas reduction targets be? What should we do with all the pipeline proposals?
I think we need gradual movement away from oil production, especially from the oil sands, and toward developing renewable energy sources. We need to invest in electrification and develop all kinds of other energy sources so we can meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets—
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2017-11-22 14:06 [p.15419]
Mr. Speaker, everyone put their best foot forward at COP23. Everyone was a leader in the fight against climate change. Everyone promised to do more, and Canada even launched an international coalition against coal. Then, everyone went home. The government realized that phasing out coal was the right thing to do, but that is not stopping it from selling coal to the Americans.
Next, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change praised the United States' decision to green-light the Keystone XL pipeline project on the same week there was an 800,000-litre oil spill from a pipeline. There is also the Premier of Alberta who is calling on the federal government for assistance in building more new pipelines. This is the same Premier that the NDP leader says shares many of his values.
The Liberals are sticking with the strategies used by Mr. Harper, who skipped UN meetings to go eat doughnuts at Tim Hortons.
Canada is certainly not finding any solutions to climate change.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2017-10-03 13:59 [p.13862]
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the environment's report was scathing. The government's response to climate change has been long on rhetoric and short on action. There has been only inaction.
Any announcements on climate change have been smoke and mirrors. Nothing is being implemented. There are no tangible measures. Greenhouse gas emissions keep going up and nothing is being done to adapt to climate change. The federal government has been standing idly by for 25 years. Since 1992, Ottawa has never met its targets, which keep changing.
Canada is the second largest country in terms of land mass, 38th in terms of population, and the ninth largest greenhouse gas emitter. Enough with the charade when it comes to the environment.
It is time for the government to take care of the future of the planet and the future of our grandchildren.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2017-05-16 15:06 [p.11268]
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has confirmed what we already knew, that is, that this government is not responsible. No real action has been taken to decrease our reliance on oil, or, if it has, the information is hidden or redacted. Lecturing or providing advice to other countries about the fight against climate change without a plan to reduce our own use of fossil fuels is as hypocritical as lecturing about human rights and then selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia.
When will this government start taking the environment seriously and table a concrete plan to fight climate change?
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2017-05-12 12:02 [p.11143]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister realized that the natural disasters affecting Quebec are only going to get worse with climate change.
However, his infrastructure plan does not include any measures at all to deal with it. To make matters worse, in this year's budget, he pulled the $2 billion announced in the previous budget to fight greenhouse gases, since there was no plan on how to allocate that funding.
Can the government confirm that it is using exactly the same plan as Stephen Harper did to fight climate change, in other words, no plan at all?
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2017-05-12 12:04 [p.11144]
Mr. Speaker, while meeting with flood victims in Gatineau yesterday, the Prime Minister realized that climate change has a real impact on flooding. He said that we have to rebuild better because what used to happen every 100 years could very well happen every two or three years from now on.
If he is really serious, he should start taking action to fight climate change by saying no to energy east.
Will the government say no to energy east once and for all, or is this all just talk?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2016-11-30 14:05 [p.7431]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government said yes to two new oil pipelines. Oddly enough, that was right before a reception on the Hill organized by pipeline lobbyists. The champagne must have been flowing after that announcement.
The Prime Minister says that these two pipelines will help us fight climate change. How can he say that expanding oil sands development is part of the transition to green energy? How can he say that this is for his children and future generations? How can he say that by polluting more, we will pollute less? His jaw-droppingly flawed logic is making us look bad to the rest of the world.
Climate change will not spare environmentally responsible nations, so all of Canada's international allies will pay for this country's irresponsibility.
Once again, Canada is making it clear that Quebec's future in terms of energy, the economy, and diplomacy depends on its independence.
View Louis Plamondon Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.
He mentioned the Paris agreement, yet it seems to me that we are far short of what this agreement requires. For example, in Paris, the reference year was 1990. Beginning in the 1990s, Quebec reached difficult targets, such as a 28% reduction by aluminum plants and a 78% reduction by lumber producers and various forestry industries. Now we are going to use 2006 as the reference year. That is the same target set by the Conservatives. It is low, very low.
Should we not be following the lead set by most other countries and use 1990 as the reference year, rather than the year we are discussing today?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2016-10-04 12:36 [p.5448]
I was fortunate to attend the Paris climate change conference, COP21, as the Bloc Québécois representative. I must say that I really felt that I was part of a historic event.
COP21 was much more than a gathering of nations. It was nations, cities, municipalities, NGOs, bankers, businesses, business groups, scientists, and more. It was absolutely the largest international conference ever organized. That shows just how important the issue is.
When Laurent Fabius brought down his small gavel to declare that the final declaration was adopted and no one, not a single person, objected in the least, we all realized that something had changed in the world. It is now clear that climate change can no longer be denied.
The Minister of the Environment said so herself: “Climate change is real and we no longer have time to debate it. The clock is ticking for us to do something about it.” This change in attitude was striking for Canada, to everyone's great relief, including mine.
Parties to the Paris agreement agreed on the facts, which is new. The agreement also spells out a target that applies to everyone, and that is major progress too. Climate change skeptics have been consigned to the dustbin of history alongside flat-earthers.
Agreeing on the facts and on a target is a good starting point, but we still have to do the work. Nobody wants the temperature to rise by more than 2°C. Some said that 1.5°C would be better. Unfortunately, what the states agreed to at the Paris conference will cause the temperature to rise by 3°C, which will be catastrophic. We know we are headed for failure, so we need to change course immediately, but the government is doing just the opposite by adopting the former Conservative government's targets.
Those targets call for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. That first date is important, and the target is virtually meaningless. France's target is 40% by 2030. Quebec's is 80% by 2050. Germany's is 95% by 2050. Sweden threw down the gauntlet to the whole world when it announced its goal to be the first fossil-fuel-free country on earth.
However, it is important to note that Quebec and the rest of the world use 1990, and not 2005, as the reference year. It is no accident that Canada is choosing to ignore the 15 years between 1990 and 2005. It is quite simply a free pass, a free ride for the oil sands industry.
I find it troubling that this government is still thinking about promoting the development of this industry, one of the most polluting industries in the world. I can barely contain my frustration at hearing the Prime Minister claim to be a champion of the green economy, while the energy east project is still on the table. The Liberals do not know how to respond; the Conservatives criticize the Liberals; and the NDP criticizes the assessment process, as if that would in any way change the nature of that project.
From the very beginning, the Bloc Québécois has been standing up in this House and saying what everyone else thinks but would not dare say: energy east is about energy from the last century, and the oil sands will kill COP21.
The energy east project will increase oil sands production by 40%. That is huge. The government would have us believe that this is a historic day and things are going to change, but as the expression goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Now that it is clear that the government has no intention of reining in dirty oil, we need to ask ourselves who is going to pay the price, for as modest as the Liberal-Conservative targets are, Canada is still headed towards utter failure. Without a major change, Canada is going to miss its target by over 60%. Frankly, at this rate, Ottawa will not see the slightest reduction until 2050.
I cannot emphasize enough that this expected failure does not even take into account the pipeline projects currently on the table, which are being considered against all logic.
If the government does not assume its responsibilities and does not establish an effective strategy that takes into account the efforts made by each province, Quebec will once again pay the price. By choosing 2005 rather than 1990 as the reference year, by ignoring 15 years of explosive GHG growth caused mainly by oil, Quebec's efforts are being swept aside. In those 15 years, Quebec's emissions remained the same. By comparison, greenhouse gas emissions in Saskatchewan soared by more than 50%.
While Canada was pretending to work towards compliance with the Kyoto protocol, Quebec was keeping pace with the rest of the world, not by giving lovely speeches or expressing noble intentions, but by working very hard. Quebeckers bet on the modern era and on the future. We invested billions of dollars to reduce our environmental footprint. For example, our aluminum smelters replaced their old polluting cells at great expense in order to decrease their emissions by 27%. They cannot replace their major cells a second time.
We do not need a calculator to figure out that it would be a joke to require the paper mills, who have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 68%, to work on reducing them by another 30%. That is bordering on 100%, which might push them to close up shop.
To achieve any sort of result in fighting climate change we have to face reality. It must become expensive to pollute and profitable to respect the environment. Those who have made the effort should be able to reap the rewards, and those who have done nothing should pay the price. Otherwise, we are left with good intentions and, worse yet, the polluters are rewarded.
So far nothing in the Liberal plan aligns with this responsible approach. By refusing to set an emissions ceiling, the government seems to be saying that its targets are like New Year's resolutions: we make them on January 1 and we break them on January 2, without any consequences.
There are some things that only a country can do, such as setting emissions ceilings that apply to everyone and setting binding targets that take into account the efforts that have been made since 1990, so as not to penalize the good students by asking them to do twice as much work. As a former teacher, I understand that perfectly well.
We need to ensure that everyone participates in the carbon market, even polluters. Otherwise, we will end up with a market with too many sellers and too few buyers, which is not very effective. Ottawa can and must do this.
Some people in Canada will not be happy, but this needs to be done anyway. Canada could take a number of measures within its areas of jurisdiction. We could be here all afternoon talking about what actions could be included in a proper plan, but that would not do any good as long as people refuse to make polluting a costly venture and being environmentally responsible a profitable one. There is a price to pay for polluting, a real price. For now, Canada is basically choosing not to pay it and is hiding its head in the sand so that it can stay in the 20th century longer.
Wilfrid Laurier said that the 20th century belongs to Canada. We say that the 21st century will belong to Quebec. There is more than one nation in Canada and there is also more than one environmental and economic reality. Some provinces have more work to do than others. Those provinces could shut down coal-fired plants, for example. Since Quebec is ahead of the game, we could take measures regarding the electrification of transportation, something that we are already working on.
When I listen to the debates in the House and look at the past 20 years of inaction on the part of successive governments, I get the impression that Canada is trying to buy time until it can get every last drop of oil out of the ground.
The Stone Age did not end because there was no more stone, but rather because the human race found ways to do things differently and to do them better. The same goes for oil. Quebec is already looking elsewhere and has already begun the shift pretty successfully.
The 21st century is tailor-made for Quebec to become one of the most prosperous places on the planet. We want nothing to do with the oil age. Quebec should already be considered a big winner on North America's carbon market. We should be the pioneers. We must find our own source of energy, one that is ours alone, with Hydro-Québec, a source of energy that will completely change our trade balance. The oil age is not our age; Quebec wants nothing to do with it. Understandably, this will drive Quebeckers to ask themselves whether this country, this oil-fuelled nation, is also theirs.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2016-10-04 12:47 [p.5449]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
Canada must indeed begin by respecting provincial jurisdiction. That is step one. It must also respect the efforts made by Quebec, such as using 1990 instead of 2005 and investing billions in industries that have invested in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
Another thing Canada can do is halt oil sands development. Not everyone is going to like that. It should leave the oil sands in the ground. It could also provide major incentives for people to buy electric vehicles. I myself just bought an electric car, made more affordable by the Government of Quebec's generous subsidies. If Canada had a similar program for electric vehicles, more people could buy them.
Canada could even buy some. Why not? It could replace the government fleet, including all of those little buses that do such a good job of bringing us here. That might be a good idea. It could also invest heavily in environmental research and development. It could support the development of ethanol plants, which use forestry, agricultural, and household waste. Do my colleagues require any more ideas? We can talk about it.
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2016-10-04 12:50 [p.5449]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
I sincerely believe that there is no better barrier to the excessive development of natural resources than the opposition of indigenous peoples exercising their fundamental rights. In that sense, I do think indigenous peoples are helping us. We are standing together against this excessive development.
There is another nation in Canada: the nation of Quebec. The government often seems to forget that indigenous nations and the nation of Quebec are united in their attempts to stop the excessive development of natural resources, which is why we support the NDP amendment.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-10-03 13:41 [p.5372]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order following discussions with the leader of the Green Party and the other leaders.
I believe that, if you were to seek it, you would find consent to allow the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, to be the first person to speak when the debate resumes following question period.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2016-06-13 15:07 [p.4398]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may be hiding his position on energy east, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government has no such qualms. As recently as Friday, he said, and I quote, “This government has put a process in place to see future pipelines get done”.
When it comes to selling weapons to Saudi Arabia to the detriment of human rights, this government's main concern is Canada's business reputation, but what about the promise it made to the international community in Paris concerning greenhouse gas emissions?
View Monique Pauzé Profile
BQ (QC)
View Monique Pauzé Profile
2016-03-10 15:04 [p.1715]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said that the Liberal government shares energy east's objectives to convince the people. The government's job is not to convince people, but to listen to people. Even the White House disagrees with Ottawa, as Mr. Kerry said yesterday.
Can the minister explain how energy east's objectives are compatible with the commitments his government made at the Paris conference, commitments that the Prime Minister renewed in Washington this morning?
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Rhéal Fortin Profile
2016-01-25 11:04 [p.325]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the voters in the riding of Rivière-du-Nord for placing their trust in me during the last election. During my time in office, I will represent them with humility, wisdom and dedication.
I would also like to thank the hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers who decided to put their faith in the Bloc Québécois to speak on their behalf in the House.
The Bloc Québécois is Quebec's party. Our purpose and our primary function here in the House is to stand up for Quebeckers' interests and values. We have a solid team made up of men and women of conviction. Our team will do a great job of representing the thousands of voters who chose to put their faith in our party and who believe in our mission: to fight for Quebec's independence and champion the interests of the Quebec nation.
Since its creation, our party has always acted responsibly in the work it does. Over the years, successive governments have been able to rely on our support when their policies served the interests of Quebec. Our party has also vigorously objected, and rightfully so, any time the rights of Quebeckers have been violated or ignored. For instance, the Bloc Québécois supported Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's work to create the now-defunct long gun registry. We did the same thing when it came time to ratify the Kyoto protocol in order to fight climate change.
We also supported the same Prime Minister in introducing same-sex marriage and imposing a moratorium on the criminalization of cannabis. However, governments that ignored Quebec or abused the rights of Quebeckers remember the opposition work of the Bloc Québécois.
I am sure that no one in this House is proud of the notorious sponsorship scandal. In any case, it was because of the hard, tireless work of the Bloc Québécois and its members that Quebec and the rest of Canada learned of the extent of the corruption surrounding the government of the day.
Hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers have long put their trust in the Bloc Québécois because doing so is good not only for Quebec, but also for democracy. The reasons are clear. First, making Quebec a country is still on the table. I can assure everyone listening that our caucus' commitment to the cause remains unwavering. Another reason we are still in the House is that the Bloc Québécois has always been beyond reproach and devoted to its work.
The Bloc Québécois is not a conventional opposition party. We do not oppose something simply because we are in the opposition. That would serve no purpose or make any sense and, as such, would be disrespectful to those who gave us our mandate. The Bloc Québécois stands up for the interests of Quebec. Until Quebec becomes a country it is critical that its choices are respected. Provided the federal government's decisions reflect such respect then the Bloc Québécois will support the government's policies. One day Quebec will collaborate with Canada, side by side within the community of nations.
We watched the sad spectacle put on by the previous government for far too long. The rights of parliamentarians were violated for nearly a decade. The House of Commons was reduced to playing a supporting role to a prime minister who did not believe in parliamentary work. The public service, scientists, women and workers were muzzled and treated with disdain, and the Conservative government basically ignored the environment, when the time has long since passed for critical action on climate change.
The Conservative government worked to achieve a single goal: to use its power to remain in power. A change in direction and tone was needed. In that regard, all the parties that ran against the Conservatives in the last election can congratulate themselves for expressing and doing something about Canadians' frustration and dissatisfaction with that government by removing it from power. That is why we commended the Prime Minister's announcement in the throne speech of his intention to return to a parliamentary tradition where respect for the opposition is a given.
There is no democracy without the work of a real opposition. The Bloc Québécois supports a number of the objectives set out by the Prime Minister. We will support some of those initiatives in keeping with our tradition of working together constructively.
First of all, we are thrilled to see that the government shares our concerns about climate change. However, we are asking that the efforts to combat climate change that Quebec has been making for a long time now be taken into account in the plan that the government will be putting forward in this regard.
That being said, all states must do their part, and there is a consensus in the scientific community to that effect. Even former U.S. vice-president Al Gore recently pointed out the major efforts Quebec has made to help combat climate change. The government cannot ignore that fact. If the government wants our support, it needs a plan that takes into account the leading-edge work that the Quebec nation has done to date.
The same is true for the matter of end-of-life care. We believe that Canada must enter into an informed and thorough debate on this issue, similar to that undertaken by the Quebec National Assembly.
However, Quebec cannot be penalized for having led the way in this area. On the contrary, we believe that the government must acknowledge Quebec's invaluable contribution, get the rest of Canada up to speed and adjust the targets for each province based on the efforts made since 1990 and the Kyoto accord.
In his speech, the Prime Minister claims that he intends to strengthen the employment insurance system. We support that. We believe it is high time that employment insurance truly was an insurance program and not a tax on labour. At present this is not the case, as EI seems to be a deficit reduction tax.
For the past 20 years, the EI fund has been ransacked time and again. If the Prime Minister is serious about strengthening the program, he must agree to make the fund truly independent. We are still adding up the billions of dollars that have been looted from this fund since 1996.
It is time to put a stop to that practice and to ensure that workers have real support when they lose their jobs. There is currently no indication that the Prime Minister intends to solve this problem once and for all. We are asking him to do so.
The Bloc Québécois has always been a staunch defender of workers' rights. We urge the Prime Minister to listen to our proposals if he truly wants to find appropriate, sustainable solutions for employment insurance.
Health is another very important issue. The Prime Minister has told us that he plans on talking to the provinces to reach a new agreement. Again, we have some conditions. Ottawa will have to increase federal health funding by 6% until 25% of Quebec's system costs are covered. Ottawa must also consider that our population is aging.
The Bloc Québécois will remain opposed to any law to implement the trans-Pacific partnership or the Canada-Europe agreement if the following conditions are not met. First, supply-managed cheese and agricultural producers will have to be fully compensated for any revenue losses. In addition, the federal government will have to provide considerable support for the next generation of farmers, to the tune of $100 million a year in investments. Lastly, the government will have to bring in border controls to prevent milk proteins from entering.
The fiscal imbalance is still a reality, and it could doom Quebeckers to decades of austerity unless something is done.
In the not-too-distant past, the Bloc Québécois was instrumental in partially addressing this issue. However, let us not kid ourselves. Everyone here is well aware that the expenses are in Quebec City, but the money is here in Ottawa.
The Prime Minister can get the Bloc's support if he acknowledges this situation and starts restoring the spending balance between the federal government and the Government of Quebec.
We salute the government's intention to renew its relationships with first nations. We fully support the Prime Minister's plan to tackle, at long last, the many issues they have been facing for too long. The Prime Minister said that he will initiate a nation-to-nation dialogue with aboriginal peoples. This is a noble initiative, and we will make sure that what is good for first nations is also good for the Quebec nation.
We will also support the government's plan to reduce taxes for the middle class. We believe that the middle class in Quebec and Canada must be strengthened. However, we would also like to see the government do more for low-income citizens. The middle class has been shrinking over the past 30-plus years not because the people of Quebec and Canada are getting richer, but because the number of people with low incomes is growing. If the government really wants to be progressive, it has to tackle poverty. Yes, we have to do whatever we can to strengthen the middle class, but all governments have an even more pressing duty to eradicate poverty. We would like the government to take meaningful steps toward that goal.
For all these reasons, we see many areas on which the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal government can agree and work together. The Prime Minister's wishes and goals are in line with many of the Bloc Québécois's demands and commitments. However, some important issues were ignored in the throne speech. We believe that a tax-free UCCB would be far more beneficial to Quebeckers than the proposed Canada child benefit.
We also believe that scrapping Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, would be better than a lengthy process to reform it.
In terms of infrastructure development, we want to make sure that Quebec's jurisdictions will not be violated for the umpteenth time by a federal program that ignores federal-provincial jurisdictions. If the federal government is serious about coming up with solutions to modernize our infrastructure, it needs to provide the Quebec government with the resources. It is up to Quebec City to decide the best way to modernize its infrastructure, with support from and by working with the municipalities in Quebec.
Allow me to reiterate that our work has always been accountable and honourable. That said, we have a duty to work together and ensure that our constituents can get the most out of every Parliament. Ever since the Bloc Québécois has been in the House, that motivation has made our party one of the most respected parties by Quebeckers. Over the years, we have even received praise and encouragement from the rest of Canada on our constructive work. Today, we are continuing in that vein with our tradition of promoting and defending Quebec's values and interests regardless of the circumstances. That is why we support, with reservations, the general scope of the Speech from the Throne.
That is also why we are asking to be heard and to join the government in a discussion with our parliamentarians in order to meet the needs of Quebeckers. We have always taken this approach because we represent Quebec. Our nation is our raison d'être. Our nation adopted a model more than 50 years ago when a tremendous group of people set out to make Quebeckers masters of their own house. This model is universally supported in Quebec. Under this model, no citizen is left behind.
We cherish a just and fair society. Modern Quebec is a society with a thirst for social justice and self-determination. However, the government in Ottawa always seems to stand in the way of the Quebec model. It has become increasingly obvious over the years that Quebec would be in a better position to develop its economy, environment, society and social programs if it alone could choose its priorities.
Earlier I mentioned that we unequivocally support the Prime Minister's efforts to engage in real nation-to-nation dialogue with our aboriginal peoples. This should set an example for the government's relations with the people of Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois is the standard-bearer for an ideal that is shared by millions of Quebeckers and that cannot be ignored.
Results: 1 - 27 of 27

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data