44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 6, 2024 11:00AM
- May/6/24 1:04:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the invaluable member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this budget is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois because it is unacceptable to Quebeckers. Let us keep the suspense for the movies: We are voting against the budget.
This is a budget that, in many ways, feeds on human misery. It is a budget of fiscal imbalance. This budget is the soul of the federal spending power, through which the federal government assumes the right to impose conditions on Quebec in its own areas of jurisdiction. These are areas in which the federal government does not have the right to legislate, such as housing and health care, among others. It is unacceptable.
Quebec has denounced the Liberal government, along with its NDP allies. Last week, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion. Not a single Quebec MNA refused to vote in favour of this motion, which called for the right to withdraw with full financial compensation for Quebec in the event of interference into its jurisdictions, as is the case with this budget. These are what we call Quebec's traditional demands.
Every Quebec government dating back to well before I was born made this demand, in particular the Jean Charest-led government, which included the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Had she been in Quebec, she probably would have voted in favour of this motion, rather than voting against last week’s proposal by the Bloc Québécois to give Quebec that right of withdrawal.
Last week during question period, a minister, whose name and title I shall not mention since this was partially private, yelled from one side of the House to the other to ask me what was a unanimous consent motion by the National Assembly worth. According to this individual, there is one every month, since the National Assembly is always unanimously criticizing the federal government.
This helps us understand just how wide the gap is between Canada and Quebec from a budgetary standpoint. Rather than turning to Quebec and showing the province a modicum of understanding and respect, Ottawa says Quebec is wrong to ask for respect in its own areas of jurisdiction. There we have it, the Liberal ministers showing the depths of their contempt. Above all, they are showing their total inability to admit that they are wrong and that they should not interfere in areas outside their jurisdiction they are incompetent to manage. No jurisdiction and no competence makes for an incompetent federal government.
This is an omnibus bill. Right off the bat I expect that the member for Winnipeg-North, an outstanding debater, will likely rise shortly, although my saying so now might dissuade him. He is going to tell me there is something or other that is good in the budget, that there are not just bad things in the budget, that some of what it contains is acceptable. Fine, except that this is an omnibus bill, a bill that has everything and anything and that amends numerous acts and regulations.
In such instances, our values must guide us and we must draw a red line. We in the Bloc Québécois have been transparent. We signalled this red line to the government before it tabled the budget. We told the Liberals that if they wanted, then maybe they could possibly consider seeking the Bloc’s support. One never knows, the NDP might leave their side.
In exchange for this support, we wanted the right to opt out of programs under Quebec's jurisdiction with full financial compensation. Is that included in the bill? Not only is it not included, but the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the amendment to the amendment that we moved to add it to the budget. They voted against Quebec's National Assembly and against all the Quebec governments that have made this request since the 1950s. What the NDP and Liberals are telling us is that they do not think the Quebec government is doing a good enough job in its own areas of jurisdiction and that they do not trust it. However, some of the problems that Quebec is having with health care, education and housing are due to the fact that it does not have full freedom to act, because the federal government is standing in the way.
We asked for old age security to be increased starting at age 65, but that is not in the budget. We asked for an end to the fossil fuel subsidies, but there are fresh subsidies in this budget, and the government is promising a plan. The Minister of Environment said that the government had abolished inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, when we asked him what “inefficient” meant, he could not even define it. The reality is that the tax incentives took on a differnt form.
The federal government owes Quebec $900 million. As François Pérusse put it, “a debt is a debt” and must be repaid. The federal government owes Quebec $900 million because we had to give asylum seekers integration classes, French classes, health services and so on. Quebec incurred these expenses and paid for them with Quebeckers' money. This budget is a slap in the face for Quebec.
Instead of granting unconditional housing transfers, the federal government decided to impose even more conditions. Quebec has had permanent housing construction programs for decades. Now, at a time when people are living on the streets, sleeping in tents or in their cars, the government got the brilliant idea to add even more red tape. The Liberals seem to think this is the best Liberal idea this year.
The consequences are serious, tragic and inhumane. For ideological reasons, this government is determined to crush Quebec and its desire to take action in its own areas of jurisdiction. The other provinces can do what they want, but this urge to crush Quebec is having tragic and inhumane consequences. The same is true when it comes to health.
This may not be the worst part, but what makes this bill even more unacceptable is the part about open banking. Banks have changed. The big banks have basically become financial product factories, selling loans, insurance and other financial products. Consumers often use third-party apps to deal with banks. The banks manufacture the financial products, and the apps handle the customer service for those products. This needs to be regulated. These transactions involve personal and private information.
The government had three choices. First, it could have opted for the Interac model, where the industry regulates itself. For instance, take Desjardins in Quebec, provincially regulated financial institutions, and credit unions in the rest of Canada. They coordinate with the banks so that the information that is shared is regulated, customers receive their product and their information is protected. This involves some self-regulation. We are not huge fans of this model, but it could have worked. However, the government said it was not interested.
Then there was the second approach, which is more collaborative and involves securities commissions. This is where Ottawa sits down with Quebec, in particular. Not only is Desjardins the biggest employer in Quebec, but it is also its biggest financial institution. The idea would be to harmonize our laws and regulate the exchange of information to protect consumers, while ensuring that they receive quality service and that new banking services meet their needs. Ottawa, which says it is still working with Quebec, has closed the door on that option.
The government has therefore decided to introduce legislation that will lead to a plan next fall, under which federal financial institutions will be included in the legislative framework. Desjardins and other Quebec co-operatives are literally being told that they have the choice of ignoring Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, ignoring Quebec's Bill 25 on privacy protection and that, if they want, they can come into the federal fold. They will fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction, which contradicts the most basic spirit of co-operation.
That is exactly how the federal government behaved. It not only stomped all over Quebec's jurisdictions, it held a knife to Quebec's throat. It behaved a bit like that when it imposed a securities commission that was supposedly national, but in reality centred on Toronto, before the Supreme Court ruled against it. The government is not open to talking with Quebec.
The Liberals can go ahead and list all the good things they want about Bill C‑69. They can try to convince us that Ottawa knows better than Quebec when it comes to managing hospitals, operating child care and fixing teeth, but that will not not change the fact that this is a bad budget. It goes against Quebec and Quebec's interests as framed by every Quebec government throughout history.
Once again, I am announcing that not only will the Bloc Québécois vote against, but I will be pleased to rise and vote no.
1515 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:15:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the immigration minister is in the bad habit of saying during question period that we take the federal government for an ATM. That may be because it is our money, drawn on our account, that is in this ATM. Quebeckers' national government is in Quebec City. I have no interest in what Manitobans think about this. If they want centralized programs, fine. Quebec, for its part, is asking for the right to opt out.
There is nothing progressive about being bad. There is nothing progressive about setting up a dental care system that already exists in Quebec, while the infrastructure already exists in Quebec. There is nothing progressive about not recognizing that drug insurance is provincial and that everyone in Quebec is already covered in some fashion or another. There is nothing progressive about not recognizing that unilateral measures cannot be put in place. There is nothing progressive about doubling and tripling red tape for housing programs or to build affordable housing units. This just adds delays. There is nothing progressive about that.
What is progressive is to listen to Quebec and let it act in its own areas of jurisdiction.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:17:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Member for Lévis—Lotbinière talks about a double standard, and yet he always votes against Quebec and for Alberta. He votes against the right to opt out with full financial compensation for Quebec, but he has no problem giving oil companies $55 billion or $60 billion in financial incentives. This is paid for with Quebeckers' money meant for day care, health, education, social programs, housing and refugees but it ends up in the pockets of oil companies. Is that not a double standard?
In the Bloc Québécois, for as long as I can remember, we have not supported any of Ottawa's budgetary policies because we always set conditions. As far as we are concerned, common sense is set out in black and white. Our conditions are clear and reasonable. That is why Quebeckers vote for us.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:18:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will tell them what I told a woman from my riding recently. When the details of the program were not yet available, she realized that she would have to pay with her credit card and then go onto the CRA portal to apply for a refund. Then, after having to wait for the refund, she would only be reimbursed for half the amount. Children are covered in Quebec. There is already a system in place and dentists are participating in it.
The government could have reimbursed people automatically so that they would not have to pay for their dental care out of their own pocket. People often have to use their credit card at an interest rate of 20%. That is what doing a good job means in a federal context. That is what Quebeckers are telling us. That is what they are experiencing. They are paying 20% interest to provide advances to the federal government for these services because it is the CRA that has to issue the refund.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 2:03:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 2024 is a defining moment in the history of the community of Saint-Benoît, now part of the city of Mirabel. Founded in 1799, this village is celebrating its 225th anniversary this year.
From the rise of the Patriotes' movement of 1837 to 1838—which was a battle for our freedom and democracy and saw the entire village burned by General Colborne's soldiers—to the expropriation of land by the federal government for the Mirabel airport, the people of Saint-Benoît have experienced many moments of adversity in their history.
Despite these major trials and tribulations, the village has been revitalized thanks to the industrialization of agriculture, the diversification of agri-tourism and the ingenuity of numerous entrepreneurs over the last few decades.
Surely members can see why I have such admiration for the people of my riding. The people of Saint-Benoît have a sense of honour, solidarity and innovation running through their veins.
On behalf of the citizens in the riding of Mirabel and on behalf of Quebeckers, I would like to wish the people of Saint-Benoît a happy 225th anniversary.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 4:59:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 2010, when my colleague was a minister in the Charest government, Le Soleil published an article that said, “the Charest government was hoping that Ottawa would recognize Quebec's right ‘to opt in or opt out of federal financial initiatives’ and that, if it decides to opt out, it would receive ‘full compensation’”.
The member voted against the Bloc Québécois's subamendment, which called for exactly the same thing that she was calling for when she was a minister in the Charest government. I listened to her speech and it seems as though she has changed her mind again.
What is her final position on Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:46:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we will repeat the same question, because that is the most important aspect for us.
My colleague ended his speech by talking about what Ottawa should do instead of mismanaging the public purse. I am with him to that point. According to my colleague, the government should give the provinces money so that they can decide what to do and what to cover and not cover in their own jurisdictions. We know what Quebec wants. Quebec wants generous coverage. We already have a better system in place than the other provinces.
In this context, how is it that my colleague got up last week to vote against the Bloc Québécois's subamendment to the budget, an amendment that called for the right to opt out with full compensation when the federal government spends money on programs that fall under provincial jurisdiction? Is he prepared to change his position and support a right to opt out with full compensation, as all elected officials in the Quebec National Assembly are calling for?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 6:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his arrogant comments that I must say were also ignorant, the member for Winnipeg North said that Ottawa supposedly has powers over health care. He cited the Canada Health Act, which is a manifestation of the federal government's spending power, which Ottawa, which has more revenue than it needs for its own responsibilities, is using to give itself the right to impose conditions on Quebec in Quebec's own jurisdictions.
I would like my colleague to explain whether this is a manifestation of the fact that Ottawa takes in more revenue than it needs to deal with its own responsibilities. I would also like him to tell me, once and for all, why this justifies Quebec having a right to opt out with full financial compensation for programs under Quebec's jurisdiction.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 7:59:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle just asked my colleague who just spoke a question saying that they do not live in the same world. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle also lives in a world where the National Assembly unanimously voted for a first resolution, then a second, and then a third.
For years, we have been calling for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full financial compensation when Ottawa institutes new spending programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. She supposedly lives in that world, but it does not seem like it because across the way, in their alternative world, the federal government is supposed to be able to manage a hospital, which it has never been able to do properly.
I have the following question for my Conservative colleague. Perhaps the Conservatives will form the government some day; it is hard to say. When that happens, will they agree with the concept and principle of a right to opt out with full financial compensation for Quebec when the federal government institutes programs in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec?
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 9:20:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be studying a bill on pharmacare, yet we have addressed every issue under the sun since the evening began. We even debated abortion, in terms of who is for it or against it.
I keep asking the same question over and over, but I get no answer from the Conservatives. If it ever comes to power some day, will the Conservative Party support Quebec's right to opt out with full financial compensation when Ottawa creates programs in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, yes or no?
Yes or no, do the Conservatives support the right to opt out with full financial compensation?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
