Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rivière-du-Nord, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9 . My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.”
“A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing.”
“Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.”
“However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice , whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.”
“We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Rhéal Éloi Fortin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 11.
“Across Canada, the number of offences rose from 8.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 31.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. This is an increase of 272%. In Quebec, for the same period, from 2015 to 2024, the number of offences rose from 14.8 to 38.09 per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 158%. As we can see, all of those crime rates have increased significantly over the past 10 years. In that regard, we fully share the concerns the Conservatives are raising about how the justice system is being managed. Changes are definitely needed. This needs to be fixed. However, as I said, at this point, we do not know the exact details of our Conservative colleagues' bill, since it has not been introduced in the House.”
“There has therefore been a real increase in the proportion of violent crimes in Quebec and Canada over the past 10 years. In Canada, the number of sexual assaults per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 57.3 to 87. In Quebec, it rose from 45 to 98 over the same period, an increase of 119%. That is a significant increase. The number of firearms offences in Canada rose from 6.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2015 to 13.1 in 2024, an increase of 100% in 10 years. In Quebec, for the same offences, the number rose from 3.5 to 8.9 offences per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 157%. I also want to talk about cases of extortion, which are an ongoing concern and have been on the rise in recent years. This is increasingly worrying, especially with what is happening on the Internet.”
“Since 2014, there has been a worrying increase in crime in Canada. The overall crime severity index for Canada rose from 66.9 in 2014 to 77.9 in 2024. For Quebec, the same index rose from 57.66 in 2014 to 63.01 in 2024. These are obviously significant and worrying increases. If we look at the statistics on violent crime in absolute terms, it is a bit tricky, because the population has varied greatly over the last 10 years. We can therefore look at the rate per 100,000 inhabitants. In Canada, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 1,076.2. In 2024, it was 1,433. This represents a 33% increase in violent crime in Canada in just under 10 years. In Quebec, the number of violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was 966 in 2015, and rose to 1,424 in 2024, an increase of 47%.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this morning on behalf of my constituents from Rivière‑du‑Nord, who once again placed their trust in me last spring. Today, we are talking about the Conservative Party's motion, which raises an important issue, the 50% increase in violent crime. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about this issue and has raised it in the House many times in recent years. However, the motion calls on the Liberal government to replace a certain number of laws with what is referred to as the “three strikes and you're out” law. The first problem is that we are not familiar with that law. We have an idea of what it entails from what we have been told, but I cannot see myself asking the House today to suggest that the government pass a law when we do not know the content of that law.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about their robust and independent judicial appointment system. The appointment of Robert Leckey, done through that very system, violates Canada's Judges Act. We believe that he was appointed precisely because he is a Liberal. The Liberals expect him to defend Liberal positions on secularism and the French language within Quebec's courts. Quebec should get to select the judges who serve in Quebec courts. Will the minister immediately relieve Justice Leckey of his duties?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Judges Act is clear. Section 3 states, and I quote: 3 No person is eligible to be appointed a judge of a superior court in any province unless ... that person (a) is a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years' standing at the bar of any province However, Robert Leckey has been appointed a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec even though he has been a member of the Barreau du Québec for just seven years. My question for the minister is simple. Does he believe that Robert Leckey meets the legal criteria to be a judge on the Quebec Superior Court, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the legal challenge against Bill 96 was in full swing, Mr. Leckey was a vocal opponent during demonstrations against it. When the legal challenge against Bill 21 was in full swing, Mr. Leckey argued that the courts should prevent the provinces from using the Constitution's notwithstanding clause. He is an enemy of Quebec's laws, and yet the Liberals appointed him as a judge. In politics, this is known as stacking the deck, except in this case, the deck is the court. The public's confidence in the entire justice system is being compromised by partisan appointments. Why has the minister not yet revoked this appointment?”
“Mr. Speaker, in January, the Liberals appointed Robert Leckey as a judge on the Quebec Superior Court. However, Mr. Leckey had only seven years of experience at the Quebec bar, whereas the requirement is 10 years. He did not meet the legal criteria, but he certainly met the Liberal criteria. In addition to being a Liberal donor, Judge Leckey is a fervent activist against bills 21 and 96. He is against secularism, against the Charter of the French Language and against Quebec identity. Will the Minister of Justice revoke this partisan appointment?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette—Manawan for his excellent speech. Earlier, a Conservative colleague said that if this bill were passed, people with no connection to Canada could end up becoming citizens. However, I believe that this is addressed in the wording of Bill C-3 , which states that a substantial connection is required. What I find a little more troubling is that she wondered whether people who apply for citizenship would deserve it. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this. Really, is a child born in—”
“Mr. Speaker, as everyone is saying, we have spoken to this bill a number of times before. Here we are again, spending another day studying this bill even though our position on it has not changed. We took a position last year, and if the House had not been prorogued and an election called, the bill would have been passed already. Instead of doing what we are doing now and going over the same ground again, should we not completely overhaul the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to come up with measures and provisions that are more closely aligned with the reality of Quebec and Canada in 2025?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, the minister, for her bill. The Bloc Québécois has already said that we will vote in favour of this bill, so she does not have to work very hard to convince us. However, my colleague from Drummond asked her a question that we did not get an answer to. I worked with the minister on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the last Parliament, so I know how thorough she is. I know that she must be very eager to respond. I would therefore ask the minister to respond to my colleague from Drummond. Can we count on her to solve the other immigration issues, especially when it comes to workers who are integrated, who have a job and who are learning the language?”
“Why did the government invoke those emergency measures, extreme measures that should only be used in extreme circumstances? We wondered about that and we found it troubling. I have similar concerns now. I am not even sure that the Supreme Court would uphold bills C‑2 and C‑5. It remains to be seen. Whatever we pass will be swiftly challenged. Unfortunately, we are opening ourselves up to rulings that will put us back to square one. I do not think that we can ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, infringe on everyone's powers and trample on rights and freedoms without being sanctioned by the courts at some point.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a man who works hard for his riding and his constituents. I am very proud to work with him as a member of the same party. That said, parallels can indeed be drawn between the problems we are seeing now with Bill C-2 and Bill C-5 , the gag order and what is looming over our heads without us knowing it. We have been sitting for three weeks, not even four. We shall see. There are parallels that can be drawn with all that and the proclamation of emergency measures. At the time, I was co-chair of the committee that had to examine the issue. We simply could not believe it. Nothing was done after the emergency measures were invoked that could not have been done before. We asked companies to tow trucks, which they did. The situation was resolved in less than 24 hours.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking Rosie, because I really enjoy working with her brother, who is a serious and hard-working member of Parliament. I am pleased to recognize that today. That being said, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I think he is right to point out that we need to strike a balance between protecting our borders, protecting our streets, keeping people safe and respecting individual rights and freedoms. My colleague is also right to say that the courts have provided us with guidelines in the past. It will be important to read them carefully. That is why I believe this bill needs to be studied in committee, so we can hear from experts and make sure that, in trying to fix one problem, we do not create an even more complex and dangerous one.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, and I can confirm that to be the case. We have said this many times, and I do not want to repeat myself, but we also want to fight organized crime, drug trafficking and fentanyl, which is a terrible scourge. What we are saying is that the government cannot do it any which way. Just because I am against criminals does not mean I agree with going around and hanging them in the streets without due process.”
“Now, this is something we do not see every day. Under this bill, a project will be decreed to be in the national interest if the Prime Minister decides it is. Projects can be exempt from pretty much any rule whenever he sees fit. All this is happening under a closure motion. I have always believed that mixing alcohol and drugs is dangerous. Now, this mix of Bill C‑2, Bill C‑5 and the closure motion has me extremely concerned. Are we witnessing something like a shift toward authoritarianism? I do not want to be melodramatic, but I think we need to be on our guard. We need to pay attention and be cautious, because none of this is reassuring for the society we live in, a society that values its hard-won privacy protections and other protections. I urge everyone here to be cautious.”
“Even if they enter without any grounds, if they manage to hide in the woods for 14 days before approaching the authorities, we have to take them in, send them to school, provide them with health care, clothe them and find them housing, even though we are unable to do so for the current population. This raises some serious issues. We are therefore calling on the government to abide by this threshold. Does Bill C-2 respond to this request? I am not sure. Once again, it is all well and good to cancel or suspend visas, but there must be grounds for doing so, and the mechanism and the procedure for that must be set out. However, all of this is a bit vague at the moment. We are being told that it will appear in future regulations. That does not reassure me. This is all happening right when the government is asking us to pass Bill C‑5 .”
“That is the federal government's responsibility. We demand that it uphold it. I still believe that this is a federal responsibility and something that the federal government needs to do. Is the current form of Bill C‑2 the solution for controlling our border more effectively? I am not so sure. The same goes for organized crime. We are also demanding that Quebec's requests regarding entry into our borders be respected. The number of individuals who can enter Quebec each year must be limited. Not only have we reached the acceptability thresholds for integrating these people, but we have been exceeding them for quite some time now.”
“However, if someone tells me that I need to have valid reasons to believe that something is the case, then my own belief, my own credibility is at stake. That is completely different. I am really concerned about lowering the evidentiary threshold for getting a warrant. I think it merits further discussion. I would like to hear from experts on this issue. As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois has become somewhat of a champion in the fight against organized crime in a number of ways. We are calling for stronger borders. Not so long ago, my colleague who was in charge of the public safety file and I were outraged that the Government of Quebec had to spend $6 million to send boats to patrol the Quebec-U.S. border along the St. Lawrence River. We were indignant. It is not up to the Government of Quebec to pay for border protection.”
“Normally, a lawyer who is seeking a search warrant must first argue before a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence will be committed, and they must convince the judge of that. This bill changes that. Law enforcement is saying that the evidentiary threshold is a bit hard to meet, so they are asking instead for reasonable grounds to suspect. Reasonable grounds to suspect is nonsense. For example, if I argue before a judge that I have grounds to suspect that my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle might think, say or do this or that, but ultimately, she does not do it, I could simply say that I had suspicions about her but that I was wrong. My suspicions did not materialize, but there are no consequences.”
“The Bloc Québécois has made that something of a calling card. I have introduced three bills to establish a list of criminal entities and to prohibit people from wearing symbols and doing anything else to promote criminal organizations, such as wearing the "support 81" shirts that caused such an uproar at the time. I believe the Bloc Québécois has been fighting this fight since the party's inception, and we will continue to do so. Do we really want to adopt provisions that would make us live in a society where individual freedoms would no longer be protected and none of our information would be kept confidential? I would like to talk about another serious danger.”
“Are we comfortable with the idea of giving financial institutions, lending institutions an advantage? I have to wonder. It also leaves a trail. As I said, I am not in the habit of paying bills for $10,000 in cash, but I would like to hear from experts on this. Are there situations where this could become problematic? I admit that I do not see any. I have looked, but I could not find any, but I still think that this is an issue that should be addressed before we say that we are making a law about it. (1740) I found the next part a bit extreme: "use an individual's personal information without the individual's knowledge or consent". Should not the authorities at least be required to obtain a warrant before doing that? This is about fighting organized crime, border breaches and terrorism.”
“In our view, these are important questions. They are matters that need to be clarified. Unfortunately, we do not have many details for the moment, aside from the fact that it will all be determined in regulations. I look forward to finding out in committee what kind of regulations we can expect. Cash transactions over $10,000 will now be prohibited. I must admit that it is rather rare for me to walk around with $10,000 or $15,000 in cash in my pocket. I do not remember ever having to pay a bill $10,000 in cash in my life. However, the fact remains that this new ban will require the use of currently available banking tools, such as cheques, Interac cards and credit cards. All of this leads to interest charges and user fees for both the payee and the payer. How will that be done? How is that going to be structured?”
“Our personal information could be accessed, captured or even shared with various organizations, both in Canada and abroad. Mail, something we once saw as almost sacred, was untouchable. It was a Criminal Code offence to open mail. Now the government wants to open it, inspect it and use it against us. New powers are being granted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to suspend, vary or cancel visas and documents. The conditions for doing so will be set in regulations that we know nothing about. What will these conditions be? How will this new power be defined? Will people who have applied and incurred expenses for their application be reimbursed? Will this bill jeopardize the status of people who were selected by Quebec, for example? In what circumstances can someone be told that their visa application will not be processed?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Unfortunately, I have some concerns about what she considers to be the strengths and virtues of this bill. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill so that it can be considered in committee, but I am not sure the Bloc Québécois will support it when it comes back to the House for third reading. We will see what happens in committee, but as of right now, I have quite a few concerns about the bill. Does keeping our streets and borders safe always mean waiving our rights and freedoms? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I do not think so. There must be other ways to make our streets and our borders safer. Once Bill C‑2 is passed, if it passes in its current form, what hopes will we have left for privacy?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. He is also new to the House, and I would like to have his somewhat novice, if I may put it that way, point of view on the parliamentary debates. He says that his leader walks the talk. That suggests that what his leader is doing right now is something that he previously announced. I never saw anything in the Liberal platform about the Liberals promising to adopt the legislation they wanted, when they wanted it and how they wanted it, and that if the other parliamentarians disagreed, they would be forced into it through a closure motion. I did not see that anywhere, but I suspect that if my colleague is telling us that, then it is because he did. I would like him to tell me where he saw that so that I can read it and refer to it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election. I listened to her speech and she seems enthusiastic about this bill. However, I would like to know what she thinks about the fact that her leader decided on many of the measures without adopting a budget. The defence budget is going up, spending is going up and taxes are going down, which seems somewhat inconsistent. What is more, with Bill C-5 , the Prime Minister is giving himself quite a few powers. He can decide what projects are of national interest and will not be subject to the applicable rules and criteria. All this authoritarianism is being implemented under a gag order without the bill being studied in committee, without us being able to hear from experts and study this bill. I wonder what my colleague thinks of that, as a new member in the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he is aware of the dealings that took place between the Liberals and the Conservatives prior to the vote on Bill C‑5 . What did the Conservatives have to hand over to the Liberals to convince them to adopt their game plan, their agenda? What did the Liberals give the Conservatives in exchange for their support of this gag order that is interfering with democracy? These are the questions that keep me awake at night. We exactly was said? Why are Quebec and Canada in this situation? How much did it cost?”
“Madam Speaker, I wonder if my Conservative colleague would allow himself the same freedom to support the government on a bill like this knowing that, hypothetically, there would be an election within a year, that the next government would be formed by the Green Party and that our Green Party colleague, the leader of this new hypothetical government, would call a halt to all oil development going forward, would put an end to oil and oil subsidies and would lead us in a transition to wind, electric and other alternative energy sources. If such were the case, would my colleague feel the same degree of pleasure and enthusiasm in supporting a gag order to pass a bill that gives the government and the Prime Minister all the power to decide what must or must not comply with the rules in force?”
“Am I right to be concerned about a shift toward authoritarianism, or whatever this may be, where all the power is given to the government and there is no longer an official opposition? We in the Bloc Québécois are the ones who need to play that role.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always great to hear someone talk about the economy when it comes to a bill like this one. I agree with my colleague that it would have been a good idea to split it. Beyond that, I would like to address the bigger picture. Parliament has been sitting for three weeks, yet the government stubbornly refuses to table a budget while projecting astronomical deficits. As for the opposition, it promises to be the official opposition, but it is in disarray and has no leader. It says that it will support this bill, which provides that this Prime Minister will not only govern without a budget, but will also define issues of national interest to which no laws or rules apply. What is more, the government is doing all this under a gag order.”
“They voted in favour of the closure motion and they are saying that they will vote in favour of a bill that gives full authority to the government, and full authority to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it will follow the rules and regulations. Now, all of a sudden, our colleague rose to criticize the bill. I am having a hard time following. Is there anyone in charge at the Conservative Party?”
“Madam Speaker, I kind of have to agree with our Liberal colleague. I too am having a hard time following. We had a Conservative official opposition that was a strong opposition with a leader. I did not always agree with him and I was quite critical of him, but that is not the issue. It seems that, not only have they lost their leader, they have also lost their direction. They are supporting the Liberal closure motion. I have been here for 10 years and for 10 years the Conservatives have been telling us that closure motions are appalling. I thought that the Conservatives were champions of democracy. I do not know what to think anymore.”
“Now, however, the official opposition, or so-called official opposition, plans to support the government, which means that the only opposition left in the House is coming from the 22 Bloc Québécois members, along with the handful of NDP members and the lone Green Party representative. In practice, that means the government has almost 400 members. I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that. Does he feel that his party has abandoned its role as the official opposition to support a bill that will be used for who knows what, or is he perfectly at ease with the idea of trampling on democracy to pass this bill?”
“Madam Speaker, obviously I do not agree with my colleague's interpretation of Bill C-5. In my opinion, this is a very bad bill for all kinds of reasons. The fact that it gives the Prime Minister so much power to define what projects are of national interest bothers me a lot, but that is not what my question for him will be about. I have always seen the Conservative Party, in this Parliament and in the past 10 years, as the official opposition to the government, opposing the denial of democracy through procedures that could sometimes be difficult to endure. The official opposition made sure that democracy was respected.”
“Mr. Speaker, today's debate is an odd one. We hear the government that was in power before the previous government calling it out for things that the new government claims are not its fault, because the Liberal Party of Canada has changed leaders. The whole thing is Kafkaesque. I cannot wrap my head around it. Personally, it does not bother me if the government is Conservative, Liberal, red, blue, orange, green, yellow or whatever colour it wants to be. All we want is for the government and those who currently hold the reins of power to get back the money that was taken from us by GC Strategies. Can it do that? Is my colleague willing to acknowledge that we need to get that money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree that the money must be recovered, regardless of whether the government in power is Liberal, Conservative or another party, and regardless of who is the leader of the party in power? This money does not belong to us; it belongs to all Quebeckers and all Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, the question has already been asked of my colleague across the way, but unfortunately, I do not think he understood it. I will repeat it slowly. Will the government take steps to recover the money stolen from Quebeckers and Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the discussions we have heard this morning are almost unbelievable. No one seems to dispute the fact that Quebeckers and Canadians were taken in by a company called GC Strategies, and that we are owed several million dollars. This morning's motion proposes that the government take steps to recover that money. What, then, are the member from Winnipeg North , who is a member of the governing party, and the Conservative members debating? They are wondering whether we would be demanding the same thing if the Conservatives were in power. Of course we would, because we have been robbed. We want our money back. With all due respect, we are not interested in who stole it. We want it back. What does my colleague think? Can we agree that a Conservative, Liberal or even Bloc Québécois government would agree that we want our money back?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. In fact, as I said earlier, I am one of the people who believes that the Prime Minister is smart, despite what some may think. I truly look forward to seeing him table a budget or explain how he is going to pay for all this spending and make this equitable. He must have a printer in his office that can print Canadian dollars or something. I do not have that skill, but he must. I look forward to hearing him explain to us how he is going to fund this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I also salute my colleague, who is someone I respect a great deal. I met him in 2015 and have been friendly with him ever since. That said, merely stating that someone is going to do something nonsensical and immoral does not make it acceptable. I completely agree with my colleague: The Prime Minister announced it during the election campaign and he followed through. However, I think it is deplorable, and so does the entire population of Quebec. It is simply outrageous.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague from Winnipeg North is saying. I wish I could have owned a grocery store in his riding during the pandemic. During that time, my colleague probably did not have time to go grocery shopping. However, based on his logic, he would still have given a cheque to that poor grocery store because they expected to receive one. If I have an electric vehicle instead of a gas‑powered vehicle, he thinks I should still give money to the corner gas station because the owner expects to receive a cheque. That is pretty flawed reasoning. Quebec will never benefit from a stronger Canadian economy. We need our own economy. We need to be respected at home and spend our money in sectors that are priorities for us, based on our interests and values.”
“I move, seconded by the member for Mirabel: That the motion be amended by adding: (a) after the words “including those from Quebec” the words “and from British Columbia”; (b) after the words “to pay Quebec” the words “and British Columbia”; and (c) the following “for Quebec and $513 million for British Columbia”.”
“Although Poilievre wanted to axe the carbon tax, he did not want to send out the money, because that would not have been logical. However, the Prime Minister went against all logic. He scrapped the tax just like the Conservatives had promised, but he also issued the cheques that people would have received had the tax not been scrapped. I do not know what to call it. My colleague from Mirabel referred to it as cheating. It is starting to look a lot like that, based on the definition he read to us earlier. Buying an election with Quebec's money by giving that money to the western provinces makes no sense, is immoral, and is very disappointing coming from someone in whom Canadian voters had placed a lot of faith by giving him power in the April 28 election. That said, I have an amendment to move to our motion.”
“The only rational explanation that I can think of is what my colleague from Mirabel said just now, which is that it was to buy votes. The Liberals figured they were probably not going to win the election in Quebec and were prepared to let it collapse and continue paying. However, in the eight provinces where the Liberals had a chance of winning, they could hurt the Conservatives, beat them and win the election. That was the gamble taken by the Prime Minister of Canada. This was about pleasing everyone by scrapping the carbon tax, because that is what people liked about the Conservative leader. It was as though the Prime Minister was telling them that he agreed with them, that he would scrap the tax himself and that he would do even better than Pierre Poilievre.”
“Where am I going with this? It makes no sense. Not only are these other provinces not paying up—so the government does not owe them anything—but on top of that, Quebeckers, who do pay, are giving money to those who have not paid the tax since April 1, money that they could have spent themselves had the Prime Minister not decided to abolish the carbon tax on April 1. I do not know how to explain it. If anyone in the House has a logical explanation, I would like to hear it. The explanation given by the member for Winnipeg North is that the government sent out the cheques because people were expecting them. I am sorry, but with all due respect to those people, because there are people that I really like in those provinces, I am not willing to hand out cheques to them.”
“These are companies that want to make profits, which is normal. If the manager of a company of that scope fails to ensure that the company makes a profit, it would not take long for the shareholders to give them the boot. These companies are out to make a profit. They buy quotas on a carbon exchange and, in so doing, end up paying a carbon tax directly. Once again, since they are not charitable organizations, they pass the bill on to their customers, the oil distributors, who in turn pass it on to Quebeckers who fill up their gas tanks every day. People with electric cars help with decarbonization and do not pay that form of tax or fee because they do not buy gasoline, but that is another debate. Quebeckers are bearing the cost of decarbonization, while citizens of the eight compensated provinces have not had to bear it since April 1.”
“(1620) Funny enough, I did not see it that way. I think that the carbon exchange is an effective system, but Canadians, except those in British Columbia, decided not to join it. How can anyone say that we did not sign onto the tax, when the tax was imposed because the others did not join the carbon exchange? That logic is flawed. We each have our own pricing system because, in Quebec, we think that the carbon exchange is the most effective system. That is the system we adopted. We joined it, as did British Columbia and certain U.S. states. Still today, in June, Quebeckers are engaged in decarbonization. Through the carbon exchange, companies that emit carbon buy quotas and pay a levy. It will come as no surprise that Esso and Petro-Canada did not become charitable organizations that felt like making everyone happy.”
“I find it hard to understand how a government that governs Canada, a government led by a Prime Minister who is competent in public finances, can try or think that it is going to make us swallow this bitter pill. It makes no sense. Not only is it unfair, but it is illegal. Actually, it may be legal, because a certain number of things can be done by decree, but it is immoral. In Quebec, we are bothered by immorality. We have had commissions of inquiry into situations that were deemed immoral. Here, we are faced with another immoral situation. Our money is being taken from us and given to others under the pretext that these people were counting on it. Give me a break. Today, I have heard colleagues on the government side repeatedly say that Quebeckers did not want to join the carbon tax and that is too bad for them.”
“If that is not cheating Quebeckers, I would like someone to explain to me what is. I do not understand how the government can take $800 million out of Quebeckers' pockets to compensate the people of eight provinces. The reason given, as our colleague from Winnipeg North explained to us earlier, is that it was planned that way. Does this mean that if we in Quebec start planning for the federal government to be fair to us and give us back our share, it will give us that money? Can we expect the Prime Minister to say over the summer that since Quebec had planned to receive $800 million, he will make sure we get the $800 million? That logic does not hold water, not even in a kindergarten classroom. No one would dare make those kinds of arguments. It is flawed logic. It makes no sense.”