44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I find it mind-boggling and ironic that the minister talks about Conservatives bringing in U.S. problems, when the current government's whole modus operandi is to import U.S. culture wars.
I want to give an example of why it is so important that we continue debate. We heard the exact same response from the government over Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and the supplementary estimates (C), where there was $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 for rapid testing, and then a duplicate $4 billion in the supplementary estimates (C) for rapid testing.
We just found out today that the government is sitting on hundreds and hundreds, if not billions, of rapid tests unused, warehoused. This is the reason we need debate on this and other issues, so we do not have a repeat of this incompetence where the government is spending billions of dollars for items that are not even used.
Would the minister perhaps comment on why he wishes to stop any oversight of taxpayer spending and the government's incompetence?
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, these are the greatest hits from the Conservative choir: obstructing us at Bill C-8 and trying to delay the work on behalf of Canadians, while we are making sure that we get the work done on behalf of the people of Canada. Once again, the Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would even prevent scrutiny of the bill, so I do not know which the member wants: scrutiny or no scrutiny. His own people said not to look at the bill.
We need Bill C-19 passed. That is why we are here today. We will get the work done on behalf of Canadians.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister what he thought of the entire evening the Conservatives devoted to having parliamentarians decide which Conservative faction would speak next. We had repeated votes. We spent the entire evening on this. How does the minister react to that abuse of parliamentary time?
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the work and the time in this chamber are precious. If the Conservatives decide to waste it and slow down the work on behalf of Canadians, Canadians will decide their fate in a future election. They can hold us to account for the work we are doing for them. That is why Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, is so important. Affordability, growing the economy, making sure that Canadians can make ends meet and making sure we are at the top of the G7 are what the BIA is all about.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 12:35:52 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 12:37:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 12:37:13 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 1:22:08 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when I think of Bill C-19, of course, the government has—
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 1:22:47 p.m.
- Watch
Order. There was an error on my part. Actually, there were two minutes of questions and comments left on the hon. member's previous speech on this particular matter.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Gatineau.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we know that the Quebec model for child care and funding is now in place across Canada. We are pleased not just with the additional child care spaces in Quebec, but also with the expansion of this program across Canada.
I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to explain just how his province and all of Canada will benefit from reasonably price child care centres.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the government whip raising that issue. He is quite right. The national child care benefit program that we have today is there in good part because of the Province of Quebec. The Province of Quebec has clearly demonstrated that we all have so much to learn when it comes to child care. By having this particular program, we are now enabling literally hundreds of thousands of people to be engaged in the workforce and to do many other things. We saw that when Quebec expanded its child care program.
When a province does something well, which the rest of the nation can copy and emulate, we should do that. For the first time in many years we have actually seen the establishment of a national program. Canadian families from coast to coast to coast will directly benefit under this program. Not only is it good for families, but it is also good for the economy. Clearly, it is one of the ways in which the government can spend money for the betterment of our society.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 1:25:09 p.m.
- Watch
I do apologize for not getting to questions and comments right away, but I know that other members would have loved to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary speak for another 10 minutes.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the member for Winnipeg North could have continued speaking for some time. I will make him happy and start with his last statement, which referred to child care. We are pleased that this has now been established in the rest of the country and that Quebec has served as the model. That makes us very proud.
I would invite my colleagues in the House to remember this example when the Bloc asks for the right to opt out of the next few Canada-wide programs with full compensation. The right to opt out was a big factor in making this possible, as was recognition of the fact that Quebec already had a good system. For me, it is a mark of respect.
Not only did the federal government take our model and implement it elsewhere, it gave Quebec its share of the money it was owed without telling it what to do. The phrase “without telling it what to do” will come up a few times in my speech today when I speak about the conditions that are set to be imposed in various areas.
I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-19. I will begin by criticizing its huge omnibus format. When the government claims to properly study bills and practise true democracy and freedom of speech, how can it seriously introduce a 500-page bill that amends 37 acts?
Several provisions involving minor amendments to legislation have garnered consensus. However, the bill also proposes other extraordinarily important and complex measures.
For example, there is the employment insurance reform, which, as I have said before, deserves to be studied separately and in depth. The current system helps too few workers in Quebec and Canada, and I find that unacceptable. I do not want to get too deeply into this, but I am not sure that anyone would hire me as an insurance salesman if I tried to sell homeowner’s insurance by telling prospective customers that the company would only pay four times out of ten in the case of a loss. This is what we are telling workers with this program, so an in-depth reform is necessary.
This omnibus bill makes it seem like the Liberal government is taking advantage of its deal with the NDP and the so-called majority it gives them to have a pile of legislation passed quickly. Still, we are more or less in favour of this bill, and we will continue to improve it, as we are doing now.
I would like to talk about cider and, especially, mead. Representatives of both these industries approached us to tell us that the reintroduction of the excise tax on July 1 makes no sense. Australia’s complaint, which led to the reintroduction of the tax, concerned wine, not cider or mead. These financially sound but more marginal productions are expanding and are the pride of several regions of Quebec. They did not deserve to be taxed. Their representatives were very anxious and approached our members to speak on their behalf.
I would like to publicly congratulate my colleague from Joliette who, with his team, did extraordinary work in committee and succeeded in having cider and mead exempted from the definition. I am very proud, we are happy, and this is one of the improvements I was talking about.
We also raised a few concerns voiced by charities, which feared they would be once again subjected to a mountain of paperwork in the restrictions, although the basis of Bill S-216 was positive. We will be keeping a close watch on that. We are keeping a close watch, and we will follow up.
As for the rest of Bill C-19, there are no measures we find strongly objectionable. For that reason, we are more or less in favour of it. Among other things, there is not much about oil subsidies, which is good. There is not much about nuclear energy. We are aware that that is coming but, for now, we have no position on the subject.
The numerous encroachments promised in the Liberal Party's budget, including encroachments on health care with the dental insurance plan, are not yet upon us. This allows us to take a step back and look at what is constructive in the bill. For one thing, it contains urgent measures that we approve of, such as the additional five weeks of EI benefits for seasonal workers. That is a positive measure in our eyes.
The Bloc Québécois offers constructive opposition. When proposals make sense, we are happy and we say so. When they do not make sense, however, we do not say that the government is lousy and that what it is doing makes no sense. We say that we think the government should try looking at the situation from such and such an angle. Quebeckers can count on us to keep doing this.
Obviously, there are the health transfers. We hope to get our way someday, even if it is not looking that way right now. This subject will always remain a bone of contention, but we will take the $2 billion offered, since it will give us some breathing room. The same goes for the $750 million for public transit.
There are also some good intentions, but we will need to work to make sure that they are implemented properly. I am thinking, among other things, about the tax treatment of companies that adopt zero-emission manufacturing processes. We will have to watch out for hidden subsidies for fossil fuels. The Bloc believes that we must eliminate the fossil fuel subsidies and begin transitioning to alternative energy sources. With respect to the ridiculous carbon capture projects for oil wells, we have seen the results they yield in other countries and the disasters they cause when they go wrong, because they do go wrong. I do not think we have the right to go down that rabbit hole. Right now, with climate change being what it is, we need to be diligent, but above all cautious. Let us be smart about this and move in the right direction.
We like the proposed amendments to the Competition Act to prevent collusion and abuse of power. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we studied the problems with competition among shipping container companies. During the pandemic, prices jumped from around $3,000 to more than $25,000 over the course of a year or a year and a half. That is outrageous. The container industry is concentrated in the hands of a few key players, so there is work to be done.
We also need to keep an eye on telecommunications companies' billing practices. I would like to see the hidden fees exposed. I think that that is also something positive.
The important thing is overall consistency. I also think it is good that pension fund managers would be forced to provide details on investments in things like fossil fuels. That is the first step in transitioning to green energy. I encourage anyone who is interested in this to take a look at the Bloc Québécois's platform or to talk to my colleague from Mirabel, who is very familiar with this issue. Our platform contains solutions, and we suggest some approaches that we would like to explore.
The luxury tax is a tricky topic, however. Everyone agrees with the principle of a luxury tax, but we need to be careful about how we proceed. The Bloc Québécois has expressed a number of concerns and reservations about this tax, mainly because we want to protect our aerospace industry. This industry should not have to wait so long for a rebate if it turns out that the tax does not apply.
We need to be smart and consistent here, to ensure that we do not hurt our businesses. I am thinking about the 35% surcharge on Russian fertilizer, for example. Everyone agrees on the principle, but I want to reiterate that when this surcharge is applied to orders placed and paid for in the fall, before the conflict started, it ends up penalizing our producers instead of the Russians. The government does not seem interested in creating an exemption.
If a government wants to impose measures, it needs to make sure they are done right.
1416 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of quick points.
I am interested in the member's thoughts with regard to the luxury tax. The principle of a luxury tax is something the Bloc supports. I would like clarity on that particular point.
The second issue that I have is with regard to the Province of Quebec. I do not know if this is still in play today, but it provided a subsidy toward the purchase of electric cars, something that we in government have also provided.
I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on that. Again, when the provincial and federal governments work together, we can enhance programs, which is good for the consumer. It would be nice to see other provinces follow Quebec's lead on that issue.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the federal government would do well to follow Quebec's lead in many areas, and pharmacare is one of them.
When the Liberals are ready to bring in their own pharmacare plan, I would invite them to follow the model I referred to at the beginning of my speech, namely child care, and let Quebec continue to manage its own affairs, which means giving Quebec its fair share of the funding. I am not talking about the federal government being an ATM, because it is our own money. That part is important.
My colleague mentioned the luxury tax. Perhaps I said it too quickly, but the point I wanted to make is that we obviously agree on the principle. We want to see a luxury tax. However, every precaution must be taken to ensure that it does not affect the aerospace industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal. It is one of our flagship industries, and any delays could pose risks.
I will conclude by saying that incentives for electric vehicles are a good idea, especially since these vehicles are currently still a lot more expensive than gas-powered vehicles. These measures must be maintained and managed in a smart way.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I personally knew one of the people who died in the storm a few weeks ago. Given the climate impacts we experienced in Quebec and also here in Ottawa, I would like to ask my colleague what positive impact this budget will have on preventive environmental measures. What is my colleague's opinion?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for her fantastic question. I proposed a few solutions earlier.
For example, we talked about green financing. It is quite a challenge to get pension fund managers to give a clear answer about where our money is invested so we can ensure that it is not going into fossil fuels. It can take a long time to find out that information. I recently asked that question, and it was not easy to get an answer. Transparency is one of the solutions.
The Bloc Québécois and Green Party members are not the only ones advocating for environmental protection. So is the general public. That proves that it is important. Instead of subsidizing fossil fuels, let us invest in the transition.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.
He spoke about the Quebec model and pharmacare, but Quebec has a hybrid system, one that is both public and private. That means many workers pay a fortune for supplemental coverage.
Does my colleague not agree with the Union des consommateurs du Québec, the FTQ, the CSN and the CSQ that we should have a universal public pharmacare system?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
