Christine Normandin
Saint-Jean, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Prime Minister 's record so far. He betrayed the climate. He betrayed our culture by leaving billions of dollars on the table. He made multiple concessions to Donald Trump with nothing to show for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we take stock of this parliamentary session, there are two things that Quebeckers will remember. The first is how the Prime Minister betrayed the environment by putting an end to Canada's fight against climate change and by pushing the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign.”
“Mr. Speaker, July 1 is fast approaching and, when it comes to tackling the housing crisis, there is a prominent local figure who stands out from the crowd and refuses to give in to fatalism.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are confusing their parliamentary majority with the right to do what they want, when they want. The time allocations never seem to stop, which is especially odd considering that their bills are certain to pass.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of Parliament. He is ramming through draconian laws using closure. He is concentrating all powers in hands of cabinet. He is using those powers to deregulate industry for the benefit of primarily American companies or to suspend certain laws.”
“His dreams are never an end in themselves, but rather the starting point for great achievements. As he prepares to welcome a new addition to his family, I send him my warmest wishes for happiness. Just like his projects, this new adventure holds great promise for the future. I would like to thank Jean-François.”
The complete record
Every one of 373 lines we hold for Christine Normandin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 8.
“Madam Speaker, there are several parts to my colleague's question. The wildfires currently devastating civilian populations are human tragedies. However, from a dispassionate perspective, they are also economic tragedies. For example, it costs a fortune to send in the armed forces to evacuate civilians. There is a cost to environmental inaction. When it comes to the green transition, Quebec led the way by creating the carbon exchange. It is a way to mitigate climate change and incentivize emissions reductions, and it is one of the ways with the fewest economic repercussions, as the OECD recognizes. If the rest of Canada wants to take a page from Quebec's experience, it would probably come out a winner in the long run.”
“Madam Speaker, we know it was a unique election. Unless I am mistaken, it was not about the carbon tax, but more specifically about a certain president south of the border. I daresay that was the most influential factor because, as my colleague kindly noted, we put forward a lot of facts. As everyone knows, one of those facts is that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.”
“Madam Speaker, ultimately, the government decided to continue the payments even though it had been announced for some time that the carbon tax would be cancelled. The public already knew about it. The injustice that is being created stems from the fact that Quebec, which continues to fight climate change, is being discriminated against because the measure that was announced is not a carbon tax measure. The carbon tax was abolished, and it was purely an election gimmick paid for out of the pockets of Quebec taxpayers. Today's motion is not about asking the population that received the $3.7 billion to pay it back. We are asking the government to compensate Quebec, which paid out of its own pocket for an amount it did not receive, even though it did everything right.”
“I encourage people to follow the various efforts led by the Bloc Québécois to address the issue. Our hope right now is that the injustice spontaneously caused by the Prime Minister will be corrected today.”
“It showed that, in 2023, food prices rose by 8.3% because of climate change, home insurance premiums went up by 4.8% and damage to homes cost all Canadian taxpayers $2 billion annually. If nothing is done, the cost could hit $13.6 billion by 2100. Repairing damage done by floods, fires, wildfires and all the extreme climate-related events we are experiencing costs an average of $720 per person per year. By 2050, it could be as much as $2,300 per person. The purpose of our motion today is to correct an injustice that was done during this year's election, but we must not avoid the discussion about climate change. It is one that calls for a longer-term view, because if we do not tackle climate change, we are doing future generations an injustice. The debate must be had more than once, not just today.”
“For Quebec, Europe is one of the main gateways to economic diversification. We know that starting in January of next year, Europe is going to impose tariffs on the entry of goods from countries that have no carbon pricing. Quebec is not isolating itself. Canada is isolating itself by abolishing carbon pricing and removing the financial incentives aimed at reducing the impact of climate change. This undermines Quebec's market development potential with the European Union. In the long run, that hurts all taxpayers. During the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois commissioned the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine to do a study on the costs of climate change.”
“We hope that with this debate in the House today, he will have time to consider our proposal, understand all its ins and outs and, once and for all, rectify the situation by giving Quebeckers the $814 million they paid out of their own pockets, with absolutely nothing in return, to hand out goodies to other people. The real question is whether we can have our cake and eat it too. Taxpayers outside Quebec wanted to receive the carbon tax rebate without having paid the tax. I am leaving out the rest of the Quebec expression because my son is listening somewhere in another room. Beyond that, abolishing the carbon tax still has its challenges and harms Quebec in different ways. We are in a trade war with the United States. We are talking about diversifying markets and the importance of finding markets abroad.”
“However, since we knew that this amount would not be collected—as of April 1, no more carbon tax would be collected—there was no reason to give any rebates. However, in what strongly resembled a vote grab, the government decided to take $3.7 billion that did not come from collection of the carbon tax, but from taxpayer funds. The government then gave that money back to everyone, except for Quebeckers. Quebec ended up being penalized by an obvious vote‑seeking measure. The payment was made six days before the election, and it came straight out of Quebeckers' pockets. Our opposition day specifically seeks to right this wrong. During the election debates, the Prime Minister was asked whether he considered this to be an injustice. His answer was rather unclear.”
“The remaining 10% in unused tax revenue was supposed to fund energy transition programs. (1015) Year after year, 80% of families received somewhere between $190 and $540 per payment. On March 14, before he was even elected, the Prime Minister announced that the carbon tax would be eliminated as of April 1. There went the stick, and, logically, the carrot should have disappeared too, but it did not. That is precisely the problem. That is exactly the issue at the heart of our motion today. Once the carbon tax was cancelled, and since the payments made to the public were advance payments, people should not have received any carbon rebates. Basically, taxpayers were given an advance on the amount that they would have paid to help them cope with the cost of living and so on.”
“The government created the carbon tax in 2018 to reduce the impact of climate change by incentivizing consumers to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is a pollution pricing mechanism whereby a cost is applied to every tonne of CO2 emissions to encourage businesses and consumers to adopt greener behaviours. Ultimately, this led to a tax on fossil fuels such as gas, diesel and natural gas. That was the stick part of the approach, but there was also a carrot. The tax generated revenue, and 90% of that revenue was redistributed to people in the form of a quarterly rebate. Canadians who indirectly paid into the carbon tax system whenever they bought gas, for example, received a payment four times a year to offset some of what it cost them. Eight out of 10 Canadians received more than they spent on the carbon tax.”
“This request reflects a motion that had the unanimous support of the Quebec National Assembly on April 23, at the tail end of the election. That motion read as follows: THAT the National Assembly take note that the federal government is granting a total of $3.75 billion in early carbon rebate funded by all Québec and Canadian taxpayers, despite the abolition of the carbon tax; THAT it note that Quebecers are not entitled to these election cheques; THAT the National Assembly ask the federal parties to commit to giving Québec its share of this payment, estimated at more than $800 million, without conditions When considered together, the two motions are pretty self-evident. Nevertheless, I want to go over the history leading up to today's debate on our motion. This is about the carbon tax. What is the carbon tax, and where did it come from?”
“Our motion reads as follows: That, given that, (i) as of April 1, 2025, the government eliminated carbon pricing for Canadian consumers and that this pricing did not apply to Quebec, (ii) despite its elimination, the government spent $3.7 billion to continue Canada Carbon Rebate payments that Quebeckers do not receive, (iii) individuals in the listed provinces received the rebate cheque on April 22, 2025, during the federal general election, (iv) the rebate was paid for with government funds, and therefore by all taxpayers, including those from Quebec, the House call on the government to pay Quebec, without conditions, an amount equivalent to its contribution to the $3.7 billion in spending, estimated at $814 million.”
“People in the House already know him. He was unfailingly patient and resilient during the campaign, and he remains so today. It is clear from the smiles that he brings to people's faces, particularly on the fourth floor. I would also like to thank my colleagues who are taking care of him while I speak in the House. Although the Speaker read the motion we are proposing today, I am going to read it again. We can never be too careful, as they say. I want to be sure everyone understands exactly what we are talking about today.”
“member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères . Since this is my first speech in the House, I want to take some time to thank a few people who made it possible for me to stand here today. I will start with the voters of Saint‑Jean, who have placed their trust in me for a third time and given me the privilege of representing them in Parliament. Of course, I would also like to thank the campaign workers. A campaign team can never work as effectively without them. Moreover, we are only as strong as our teams. I must not forget my office staff, who held down the fort during the campaign: Dave, Hugo, Diane, Huguette and Philippe‑Olivier. Of course, we must also acknowledge our family members, who support us on a daily basis, in good times and bad. There is my little boy, Léopold. I see smiles on my colleagues' faces.”
“Motion moved: That, given that, (i) as of April 1, 2025, the government eliminated carbon pricing for Canadian consumers and that this pricing did not apply to Quebec, (ii) despite its elimination, the government spent $3.7 billion to continue Canada Carbon Rebate payments that Quebeckers do not receive, (iii) individuals in the listed provinces received the rebate cheque on April 22, 2025, during the federal general election, (iv) the rebate was paid for with government funds, and therefore by all taxpayers, including those from Quebec, the House call on the government to pay Quebec, without conditions, an amount equivalent to its contribution to the $3.7 billion in spending, estimated at $814 million. She said: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague, the hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, the second part of Bill C‑5 is called the building Canada act, but it might as well be called the destroying the planet act. Ottawa is giving itself the right to green-light fossil fuel projects by making orders, with no environmental assessment or consultation. It will decide unilaterally. Only once the decision has been made will it conduct bogus assessments and consult Quebec, the provinces and indigenous peoples on what is essentially a fait accompli . Do the Liberals realize that this is a setback of historic proportions for both the environment and democracy?”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 's measures to do away with trade barriers could move forward without any issue had the Liberals not decided the bill should also include provisions imposing dirty oil and gas pipelines on Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is willing to work with the government on interprovincial trade, but it is a two-way street. If the Liberals want to work on trade, then we will be a partner, but if they want to use trade as a smokescreen for imposing energy projects, then we will stand in their way. Will they accept our help and divide Bill C-5?”
“Mr. Speaker, the promised Liberal magic is not working on Donald Trump, and Quebec is suffering the consequences. Tariffs of 50% are being imposed on our aluminum and our steel. Some 2,000 layoffs were announced in our forestry industry, and that is not all. Yesterday, we learned that our aerospace industry is in the line of fire, and that Washington is thinking of imposing tariffs by the end of the month. Yet, in Ottawa, there is still no support for our key sectors, still no budget. The Liberals are still improvising. It has been three months. Sharing our concerns is not enough. What is the government waiting for? When will it protect industries in Quebec?”
“Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday, U.S. tariffs on aluminum and steel have doubled to 50%. After three months of this dispute, time is running out for our industries. However, after three months, they have yet to receive any support. The Prime Minister says he is in intensive discussions with the Americans, which is good. However, after three months, the government should no longer be at the intensive discussion stage. It should be at the intensive action stage. Our industries need liquidity and wage subsidies. After three months of inaction, will the Prime Minister finally protect our workers and industries?”
“Mr. Speaker, before meeting with Quebec and the provinces today, the Prime Minister met with business people first yesterday. He was not meeting with steel or aluminum representatives to talk about Donald Trump's new tariff threats. No, he was meeting with fossil fuel CEOs. Oil companies come first; Quebec and the provinces come second. The Prime Minister was not elected to serve oil companies. He was elected to protect Quebec's economy from Donald Trump's threats. Why is he putting oil companies first?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were elected on a promise to make Donald Trump's tariff threats their priority. However, what the first ministers discussed in Saskatoon today was not the new tariff threats against aluminum and steel. The priority they discussed was how to force Quebec to accept a dirty oil pipeline from the west. Quebeckers voted for a government that would protect them from Donald Trump. They did not vote for pipelines. Will the Liberals get their priorities straight?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is not a business, and Quebec is not a subsidiary. If there is more than one economy in Canada, it is because there is more than one nation. Quebeckers' interests will never be sacrificed in the name of so-called Canadian unity. The French-language workplace in Quebec is not a barrier to labour mobility. Employing Quebeckers when we harvest our public forests is not a barrier to trade. The existence of the Quebec nation is not a trade barrier. Does the Prime Minister understand that?”
“Mr. Speaker, some of the plans outlined in the throne speech do not bode well for Quebeckers. When the Liberals talk about one Canadian economy, not 13, what they are really saying is that they want to run Quebec's economy from Ottawa. That is why the National Assembly immediately and unanimously rejected the proposal for one economy, not 13. Quebec is and always will be in charge of its economic future, its trade and the laws that govern it. When the Prime Minister meets with his counterparts on Monday, will he commit to Quebec that he will respect its jurisdictions?”