Sébastien Lemire
Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member from downtown Toronto gave a speech on the challenge of access to housing and housing construction, because I get the impression that, for the last 30 years, the federal government has been doing nothing but building housing in downtown Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday.”
“That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion's share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years.”
“As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves. For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season.”
“It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years' delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 447 lines we hold for Sébastien Lemire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“A mandate is created, which goes without saying. However, where does the mandate come from? It would be nice if it came from parliamentarians, given their role as elected representatives of the people. Next come negotiations. I realize that this requires some give and take, but the signing stage is important, and that is where Bill C-228 comes in. It requires that the text be tabled in the House of Commons and that the House, after a study in committee, provide its advice on these treaties. Major treaties are treaties that require the enactment of an act of parliament, change the government's powers, impose a significant financial obligation, result in changes to Canada's boundaries, impose economic sanctions or transfer jurisdiction to international institutions, affect government jurisdictions or deal with international trade.”
“The Bloc Québécois wants to ensure that these treaties are tabled systematically in the House of Commons and that there is a period of at least 21 days after tabling before they are ratified so that the House has an opportunity to consider them. In the interest of transparency, which is sorely lacking in this government, the Bloc Québécois also wants these documents to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As for major treaties, we want to establish an obligation to seek advice from the House before they are ratified, of course, and to consult our civil society through a parliamentary committee, because major treaties affect everyone. We need to ensure that decisions are made and that they are sustainable. In fact, treaties basically involves five stages.”
“Foreign policy and international policy cannot be rooted in emotions. We have seen that too often. We see what Donald Trump is doing and the damage it is causing. It is impacting all of our industries. Instead of constantly looking for solutions, why not strengthen our relations with the United States and many others? What we do know is that Canada has more than 4,400 international treaties of all kinds. These are treaties, agreements, protocols, conventions and amendment agreements to existing treaties. They impact many aspects of people's lives, like taxation, investments, expropriations, environmental protection, human rights and labour rights. That is what is in these treaties.”
“Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister have us believe that we need to ally ourselves with Europe for a war? Who are we at war with, the United States? We could very well lose everything. The sense of security we enjoy in Canada is clearly directly linked to the United States and our continental approach. That needs to be reflected in our trade relations. A partnership with China risks provoking the United States, likely resulting in surtaxes on our purchases, which the U.S. has been threatening for a year. I think we could all have done without that. It will have an impact on the trade agreements covered by this bill. On that note, I want to mention the leadership of the Bloc Québécois, which is trying to bring a little more transparency, a little more democracy, a little more accountability into the picture.”
“To me, that is a way of provoking our ally to the south, the United States, which is normally our main trading partner. What is Mark Carney up to? Would he have us believe—”
“He is part of the great global elite that likes to control the masses and tell them how to think. That is essentially what he reiterated. The global dichotomy has changed. The United States now has a different relationship with Canada because the Prime Minister never followed through on his promises. (1110) The Prime Minister promised to snap his fingers and do something about the tariffs. A year later, relations have never been so frosty. Let me be clear: I have no sympathy for the American president. However, relations with the United States are fundamental. The Prime Minister wants to be able to say that war is coming everywhere, that things have changed and that we must adapt. He even goes so far as to say that if we are not at the table, then we are on the menu.”
“What we are seeing is that the Prime Minister of Canada went first to the Middle East to talk with countries whose concept of human rights and whose economic priorities are sometimes questionable, in my opinion, whether we are talking about Saudi Arabia or Qatar. Then he went to China. Why go to China if not to sell our soul? It is beyond me. We know what a disastrous impact China has had on the global economy. We know that it takes a very colonial approach to its relations with various countries. It appropriates resources by promising to build infrastructure, but essentially plunders resources in order to appropriate them later. What was Canada doing there? Why did it want to rekindle this relationship? I do not know. Then the Prime Minister went to Davos. We know where the Prime Minister is coming from.”
“Mr. Speaker, I obviously cannot give the first speech of 2026 without wishing you a happy new year. This will be a very promising year, particularly for Quebec. I think that this will be a very important year in terms of the fate of the Quebec nation. Many of us have just returned from the Parti Québécois's policy convention and we can feel a change in the air. There was also a palpable buzz at the international level at the beginning of 2026. It began with Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela, and there was also a speech given at Davos that left quite an impression on people. Will it have a lasting and positive impact? That remains to be seen.”
“He remains active as president of the arbitral board of the Union Cycliste Internationale. We also have him to thank for making mountain biking an Olympic sport. I offer my congratulations to both athletes, with a special shout out to Marc Lemay on this major milestone. Abitibi—Témiscamingue will forever be very proud of them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to acknowledge the induction of Jennifer Abel, Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, Diane Roy, Henri Sassine and the legendary Paul Houde and Michel Bergeron into the Quebec sports hall of fame. I am especially delighted to note the induction of two people from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, weightlifter Christine Girard and cyclist Marc Lemay. Christine Girard, a gold medallist from Rouyn-Noranda, is a powerful symbol of clean sport thanks to her determination in London. She first won a bronze medal, already an incredible feat, and then won gold a few years later. There is also the former Bloc Québécois member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, my mentor and friend Marc Lemay. This cyclist from Amos and recognized community builder is known for his past commitments to the Tour de l'Abitibi and to Cycling Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the part of my colleague's speech when he talked about the member for Battle River—Crowfoot . He spoke in particular about this member's empathy, which I find rather surprising, since that is not necessarily the first thing that we notice about him in the House. At the same time, my colleague made me realize that the confidence vote in the Conservative leader is a bit of an elephant in the room when it comes to Bill C-15 . What impact will that have on his party's work when it comes to the passage of Bill C-15? The bill still has to go through a few stages, including a study in committee and then the study in the House. Will the Conservatives propose amendments in committee? What impact will the confidence vote have on the Conservatives' position on Bill C-15?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauce for his speech, which he ended by saying that he would fight for his constituents. We know that there are statistics that prove this, when we look at his profile on the HockeyDB website. I am very confident that the people of Beauce will be well represented. My colleague talked about an important issue that is not part of Bill C‑15 and barely part of the budget, which is very regrettable: cell coverage in the regions. Why is the federal government ignoring this problem? This affects public safety and regional economic development, not to mention just making our regions feel like they are connected to the rest of the world. Living in the regions is not a sacrifice, it is not a privilege. We are making use of the land. This is where we live.”
“In her study, she recommends that we reevaluate our perceptions and further our understanding of the use of psychoactive substances; consider how current services provided in the regions could be improved and seek more involvement from people who use psychoactive substances; improve the understanding of professionals working with substance users about the overall phenomenon of psychoactive substance use and offer them appropriate training; treat people hoping to improve their living conditions with consideration and dignity, regardless of the means they used to obtain a service; treat the person holistically in order to avoid compartmentalizing support by issue or observable trait; and examine the range of specialized services available to support people experiencing grief associated with an overdose and to understand their specific needs.”
“Stigma poses a significant barrier to recovery for individuals striving to improve their lives. There is some food for thought here. Should we collaborate more with the people who use psychoactive substances? Should they be more involved? Should we listen to them more? That is what our colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière is reminding us today. I would also like to mention some of the recommendations she put forward, because I believe the bill will go a long way from a legal standpoint, but I would also like us to take this opportunity to go further in terms of the services that are offered.”
“I would like to talk about some observations concerning the use of psychoactive substances that Ms. Jutras makes in her study. People use substances for different reasons, ranging from mere habit to self-medication, recreational use and physical and mental pain relief. The majority of the people who use psychoactive substances feel or experience stigma. That has to stop in order for interventions to be effective. Stigma arises from multiple sectors of society, including individuals who use psychoactive substances, the general public and social systems, such as political, health care and legal institutions. It is often perpetuated by professionals and individuals within these systems who may sometimes behave dismissively toward people who come to them for help.”
“Her name is Catherine Jutras. She is a friend and an overdose prevention consultant for an organization known as Arrimage. She conducted a study on drug use that was entitled “La consommation, un monde 'stupéfiant'”. During the study, she met with me formally in my capacity as an MP, and the organization made a video to demystify the use of psychoactive substances. She introduced her study with the following sentence: “I don't want to become a statistic. If you die from an overdose, you become a number”. Given the current circumstances, I think that is particularly striking. I want my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière to know that his work means that David will always be more than a statistic and that taking action to support prevention will bring significant long-term change.”
“I commend the Conservatives for taking this step, under their colleague's influence, and bringing a dose of compassion to the debates, which is often sorely lacking. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work of those on the ground, particularly frontline workers, who see people in distress and who are often brought face to face with powerless people whose behaviours are dictated by their addiction, not their will. Those people are often neglected. We must commend those who work on the front lines. In light of that, I invite everyone here to develop a better understanding of what drives people to use substances. For some people, their first experience is in a social setting, but there are also people who are struggling with addictions. I would also like to highlight the work of a young woman from my riding.”
“Madam Speaker, it is difficult for me to rise in the House this morning, but I do so with dignity. I think that what we have experienced this morning is one of the finest moments in the House in recent years. I commend my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière for his courage. As a parent of teenagers, I have to say that what he went through is my worst nightmare. I also commend my colleague's wife, because together they made the decision to make this public so that we can remember their son. When he talks about David's friends, I am also thinking of all the parents of people like David who are still here and looking for answers. The Bloc Québécois will support the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière in this bill. For the Bloc members, the concept of prevention is certainly important.”
“The Conservatives are saying it will make trade secrets public when firms invest here. Is that really what the Conservatives want to do?”
“Mr. Chair, in his remarks, my colleague talked about contracts, and that reminds me of the battle that took place at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology two years ago, specifically regarding the Stellantis, Honda and Volkswagen contracts. The Conservatives were fighting what I thought was an irresponsible battle to release the contracts. We had access to them. Although I thought it was reasonable for us, as parliamentarians, to be able to verify the content and ask certain questions, respecting trade secrecy is essential if we want to maintain investments. Is it Conservative policy to want to make these contracts public and to always fight these battles, which will harm Canada's and Quebec's ability to attract foreign investment? That is the consequence.”
“Mr. Chair, my colleague has indeed been an advocate for several environmental issues. I am thinking in particular of innovation in the auto sector. I know that the electrification of transportation is one of the values he has been promoting in the House for a long time. That said, what has his government done in recent years? It cut back on innovation. Programs such as Sustainable Development Technology Canada had the merit of investing in SMEs that were creating this technological innovation so that we could all have electric vehicles by 2035 in order to save our planet. However, momentum in investments and in SMEs stalled from a failure to respect patents and contracts. Ultimately, these investments collapsed. What do we have in the latest budget? Absolutely nothing.”
“Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate my colleague, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. He made a point of mentioning that because he has the audacity to stand up in the House to defend the government's environmental vision for the automotive industry. That is so ironic, because the government signed an agreement to build a new pipeline to produce more oil. Why? It is to keep the auto industry rolling even more. It is very consistent with the Canadian vision. We are at the mercy of oil and gas and the auto industry. Why has the government stopped investing in the electrification of transportation? Why has the production and innovation that was being done in Quebec been diverted to Ontario? Is oil and gas really Canada's future yet again?”
“Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Windsor West for his impassioned speech. We know that the riding of Windsor West includes the Ambassador Bridge and is affected by this situation of exports to the United States. I understand the concern about that and the impact that the economic slowdown and the crisis with the United States is having. If Canada produced only electric cars, but there was still cross-border trade and my colleague's riding got a boost, would he not still come out ahead? Do the cars produced here, which cross the border several times, need to be gas-powered vehicles?”
“Instead of having a proactive mining industry ready to extract the resource for nearby processing, and instead of a sustainable and robust North American supply ecosystem for automakers using battery cells manufactured in Quebec and Canada, these resources are being sent out for export. The same applies to oil and gas; the same applies to everything. The government is choosing to export resources rather than use them to create added value here at home. Would my colleague support the creation of a mining industry that processes resources near their extraction site?”
“Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Guelph. I enjoyed learning about her riding this evening. I think she is a good advocate for her riding and for auto industry innovation. She talked about a critical minerals strategy. The problem is that there is no such strategy. If there were, it would be focused on processing. What is happening right now? Right now, we are dependent on China, which controls 80% of the lithium market and over 90% of the market for the many strategic critical minerals needed to manufacture electric batteries. These critical minerals are currently being dumped.”
“Mr. Chair, I, for one, applaud the incentives that were offered. We are doing this for the planet, from an environmental perspective. The break-even point in the pollution emitted by an electric vehicle versus a gas-powered vehicle is 20,000 kilometres. After 20,000 kilometres, an electric vehicle is good for the planet. My electric vehicle has over 200,000 kilometres on it, and I am very proud of that. We need to start investing in innovation and technology again, because we do not have a second planet ahead of us. This debate should lead us to renewing subsidies for innovation and electric transportation.”
“Where is the federal government when it comes to innovating in an industry that could have been sustainable, that of strategic critical minerals and local processing? What is the strategy right now? The focus is entirely on exports. We are not keeping our resource, we are sending it to China, we are becoming dependent, there is dumping and our economy is collapsing. Those are the consequences.”
“Mr. Chair, rarely do I get the feeling that my speeches in the House are so clear that they do not prompt any questions. I think that this may mean that what I am saying is resonating. One point that really resonates is the one made by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. I am thinking in particular of the forestry industry. What does the forestry industry get compared to the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies given to oil and gas companies and the automotive sector? The forestry industry gets only a few tens of millions of dollars that are poorly targeted to meet urgent needs. As for sustainability, not nearly enough is being done. This is a major concern for me. I would like to come back to something fundamental to Quebec's economy, and that is the whole concept of innovation.”
“Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Essex for his comments and his concern for the industry. However, my response to him is that we actually do have a choice right now. Do we want to manufacture cars with parts that make dozens of trips back and forth to the United States? It ultimately costs a a lot, with the taxes, surcharges and so on. Would it not be better to develop a product with a secure and sustainable supply? That would have allowed the industry to use batteries produced in Quebec and Canada, which are traceable and known to meet the highest environmental and labour standards. That would have had a lasting economic impact. We missed that opportunity because the Conservatives diverted the funding sources. The government stopped investing. Do I think the 2035 target will be met?”
“There was absolutely nothing in it for Quebec's industry when it comes to innovation in the electrification of transportation. I would not say they have blood on their hands, but they certainly have oil flowing through their veins. They killed an emerging part of Quebec's economy, and the government was complicit in that. I will hold that against them for a long time.”
“A few years later, it has lost those investments, and that is embarrassing. What is also embarrassing is the battle being waged by the Conservatives, who have been persistent in trying to kill the auto industry for several years. It is no secret; they are likely influenced by their big oil industry donors. They killed the investment ecosystem for electric vehicles and related SMEs. In fact, there was money for all of that. The sustainable development technology Canada program was not perfect. There were certainly governance issues, which we all acknowledge today. To its credit, however, it was supposed to invest in SMEs. Then its funding was frozen, leading to a fight that even paralyzed Parliament for a long time. This meant that the people who had patents and innovation projects went silent. What did we see in the last budget?”
“I am proposing creating a product in the mine, processing it and completing the various stages. This would reduce transportation and create the greenest product in the world, which would end up in a cell. That way, we would not need to outbid other countries to attract factory projects, because companies would be fighting to set up shop near the production site so they could sell this cell. They would be selling a value-added product that respects workers, respects the environment, and is the greenest in the world. The industry is clamouring for this type of product. The traceability of the minerals and the production of this battery would be obvious if we invested in local processing. What did Canada do? It did not do any of that. It tried to outbid the Americans.”
“However, unless we develop these products, and unless the government provides the funds needed for this kind of processing, these are empty words. How can we ensure that a product has significant added value? There must be an assurance that labour laws were respected and no child labour was used during production. On that point, I would like to commend the leadership of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton , who is introducing a very interesting bill in this regard. The production process must also comply with Quebec's laws, which include some of toughest environmental standards in the world. Institutional knowledge must also be respected, such as that of the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, which studies the environment and mining. It has done wonders for new technologies.”
“Cathodes could be produced, since the Horne smelter in Abitibi-Témiscamingue produces sulphuric acid on an industrial scale. That is where the chemical process would take place. We could make anodes. I am talking about the operation of electric batteries. Obviously, several stages are involved, like the crushing and chemical stages. Then comes cell production. Different places in Quebec could be involved in producing the greenest battery in the world. I had the opportunity to travel to Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States with the former minister of industry, now the Minister of Finance . What did he use to say? He used to say that Canada deserves more attention, because it has the greenest products in the world.”
“Obviously, the federal government did not invest a single penny in that, which was perhaps a good thing. However, Ontario was promised investments in Stellantis, Honda and Volkswagen. We are talking about nearly $30 billion that was announced to move Quebec's automotive industry, all its innovation, and its small and medium-sized businesses to Ontario. This is theft committed with our money, and it is outrageous. The strategy that I advocated for then, and still advocate for now, would have been the best. It involved processing a resource close to its extraction site. Take my region, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, for example. My riding is home to the only operating lithium mine. Why not process the lithium near the mine? That would create value added.”
“Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues who requested this take-note debate and by saying that I warned them. When we had a debate on Stellantis and the big subsidies, I was the industry critic. We had done studies. I also previously urged the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to take an interest in the development of strategic critical minerals in order to gain a national perspective on this issue. What happened? Canada tried to outbid the Americans. Canada wanted to play hardball and show that it could put up more money to attract investors. Three years later, what is happening? That money may have been lost. Everyone in Quebec was supposed to be happy, because investments in Northvolt had been promised.”
“Mr. Chair, my colleague says that she might like to have an electric car one day. That is a little shocking because the Conservatives' policies in the House over the past two, three or four years smack of the oil lobby. The Conservatives wanted to eliminate just about every possible subsidy that was being given for innovation in the energy transition and for innovation in SMEs to improve the efficiency of electric cars. The credit for purchasing electric vehicles has been eliminated. The 2035 target is becoming less and less realistic because they killed this ecosystem that was good for Quebec. Does my colleague still want to buy an electric car?”
“Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, for his remarks. I particularly appreciated his sensitivity toward workers affected by a conflict that seems to have been created entirely by the government. The government could have resolved this conflict with the United States with a snap of its fingers. Furthermore, for the past 10 years, the Liberals have directed virtually all investment in the Canadian economy towards oil and Ontario's automotive industry. Now we find ourselves in a crisis that continues to drag on. Is my colleague embarrassed by his Prime Minister 's lack of action to resolve this crisis and address the impact it is having on workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Northwest. I particularly appreciative his very sensible contributions to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the role he plays as a first nations member in ensuring that the voice of first nations is heard in the House. Bill C‑4 does not put forward anything specific for first nations, yet the needs are enormous. The government is saying that cutting taxes, eliminating the carbon tax and other measures will have a huge impact on the budget deficit. These are funds that could have been invested in communities. What impact will this really have? What measures would my colleague have liked to see put in place to help his community and many others across Quebec and Canada?”
“That would have been so simple, but the federal government ignored that suggestion. It is cheap and meanwhile, people back home are losing their jobs. People throughout Quebec are losing their jobs. Temporary layoff notices are being issued just before Christmas. I think that is unacceptable. The solution is simple, and it does not involve giving another credit card to anyone about to declare bankruptcy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for emphasizing something so fundamental. Again, I will use the word cheap to describe the federal government. In Quebec, we have an industry that has been unstable for decades because of the crisis with the Americans. We are not in this situation just because of Donald Trump. This has been going on for decades because the federal government has not been doing anything about it. The government may have spent tens of millions of dollars over the years, but that is nothing compared to the tens of billions of dollars it invests in the oil and gas industry. The forestry industry is in crisis. It needs help. The Bloc Québécois proposed that the government pay some of the countervailing duties and provide a wage subsidy to help businesses.”
“I do not think it would have been that difficult to increase seniors' income a little, but this government would rather cheap out on them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yellowhead for his question and for the compassion and rigour he has shown on the two committees on which I serve. I really appreciate this member, especially because he talks about tax fairness in his speeches. When it comes to seniors, I consulted with seniors in a dozen municipalities in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, including indigenous communities. The take-away from those consultations is that people feel as though they worked hard all their lives and yet many seniors are no longer able to make ends meet and have to do without. More and more seniors are couch surfing. Hidden homelessness is on the rise, and an increasing number of widows and widowers have to leave their homes because they can no longer afford to stay there. This is a very serious situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I oppose Bill C-4 for obvious reasons. Yes, a cheque will be sent out that might amount to $210 for one fiscal year. However, I am a Quebec taxpayer, and scrapping the carbon tax will cost me more because health care costs are skyrocketing. Climate change is generating health care costs of $6 billion a year. That money will come out of the pockets of Quebeckers. As for the carbon tax rebate that Canadians in the rest of Canada received, it was paid for by Quebeckers. We paid $814 million. Obviously, as a Quebec taxpayer, I am paying part of that amount, which the member for Winnipeg North will not admit.”
“I hope this vote will be considered not as a mere partisan gesture, but as a moral commitment to our constituents, our land and the rights of Quebeckers.”
“It cannot claim to respect Quebec while taking hundreds of millions of Quebec taxpayer dollars and sending them to provinces that have chosen not to join Quebec's carbon market. True environmental responsibility demands consistency, fairness and respect for the choices of provinces that lead by example. Bill C-4 fails on each of these counts. By rejecting this bill, we are affirming our commitment, not only to the tax fairness that Quebeckers demand, but also to a responsible and sustainable vision of the environment. We refuse to sacrifice effective climate change fighting tools, which are verified by experts and have already proven to be effective, in favour of short-term political manoeuvring. By saying no to Bill C-4, we are saying yes to a future for generations to come, yes to consistency and yes to justice for Quebec.”
“This is money that was taken directly from the pockets of Quebeckers and given out elsewhere in Canada. That is not responsible environmental or fiscal policy. It is an unfair transfer that penalizes Quebec for having established, well ahead of the rest of the country, an efficient and consistent carbon market through the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system. The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously to call for compensation for this injustice. The Bloc Québécois made it one of its pre-budget demands. However, the federal government refused, at committee and in public, to right this wrong or even acknowledge it. A government cannot claim to be fighting climate change seriously and then ditch the only mechanism it had that actually reduced emissions.”
“The devastating fire that ravaged the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region is a striking illustration of what can happen when effective climate policies are abandoned in favour of short-sighted economic decisions. When it eliminated the carbon tax outside of Quebec, the federal government also issued so-called rebate cheques to the residents of those provinces. The cheques were intended to offset a tax that in reality no longer existed. These payments were given out in the middle of an election campaign. They were basically election handouts paid for by all Canadian taxpayers. Quebeckers did not receive any of these cheques, but they still helped pay for them. In concrete terms, this represents a direct financial loss of $814 million for Quebec taxpayers.”
“With climate change intensifying year after year, causing forest fires, floods, droughts and coastal erosion, the timing of this decision is profoundly irresponsible. Instead of strengthening one of the few tried-and-tested tools at our disposal, the government chose to weaken it for short-term political gain. Quebec will once again pay a steep price. I would like to draw the House's attention to a very concrete example. In the summer of 2023, the Abitibi—Témiscamingue region and northern Quebec were among the areas hardest hit by forest fires. Thousands of residents, some 5,500 people, had to be evacuated from their homes. This tragic situation was not an isolated case. All across Canada, more than 10 million hectares burned that year, smashing previous records.”
“Before I wrap up, I must address another fundamental issue raised by this bill, and that is the government's decision to eliminate carbon pricing outside of Quebec through this bill without putting forward a single credible measure for offsetting the environmental damage that will result from this decision. As the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development clearly stated, the price on pollution was one of the few elements of the federal emissions reduction plan that was really working. Eliminating it was not only an environmental error, it was a political decision that flew directly in the face of the science, the facts and possibly, in the long term, the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians. Fortunately, Quebec will continue to play a role with its carbon market with California, which is still in place.”