44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 23, 2024 10:00AM
- May/23/24 10:22:25 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That the House:
(a) condemn the federal government’s repeated intrusion into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories;
(b) remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”; and
(c) demand that the government systematically offer Quebec, the provinces and territories the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation whenever the federal government interferes in their jurisdictions.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:22:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Chair that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), all of the Bloc Québécois's speaking slots for today's debate on the business of supply will be divided in two.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:22:25 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:22:44 a.m.
- Watch
Noted.
We will begin debate. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:22:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over the past few years, the Government of Canada has developed a way of doing politics that follows a clear and heavy-handed approach, including an egregious abuse of the so-called fiscal imbalance. This means that the federal government is receiving more revenue than it needs to fulfill its roles and responsibilities, whereas Quebec and the provinces are collecting and receiving less than they need to fulfill their respective roles and responsibilities.
The government is taking that money and using its constitutional spending power to intrude into areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, the provinces and the territories, as set out in the Constitution. What is emerging more and more is the government's persistent, clear and ideological push to centralize powers, in the sense of the responsibilities specific to a level of government. I certainly do not mean powers in the sense of ability or the faculty to do something. These powers are being centralized in the federal Parliament.
When we take a close look, it is pretty clear this is a failure. It is one failure after another. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Jonquière. I could list a whole series of the federal government's failures when it comes to interference, but I could go on for days, so I will just name a few.
I will use a recent example, namely the government's desire to intrude in the area of dental insurance. At first glance, this seems ideological. Then they decide to hand it over to the private sector, with the support of the NDP. Now it seems no one can make heads or tails of it. It is a failure in the making. It is clearly the result of their refusal, for many years, to make the health transfers that Quebec, the provinces and the territories are unanimously calling for.
In this context, the federal government claims to be working hand in hand with Quebec and the provinces. However, no serious person with a third-grade education still thinks that this is not some kind of a never-ending conflict with the provinces.
There are the conditions imposed by Ottawa on municipal infrastructure. There are the conditions imposed by Ottawa on social housing. There is the colossal failure of immigration: Ottawa is incapable of handling visas, there is a years-long backlog of case files, and the Minister of Immigration has lost track of hundreds of thousands of people currently on Canadian soil. There is the sub-contracting of immigration policy to a highly questionable company such as McKinsey, an ideological aberration that ultimately weakens Quebec. The federal government has failed across the board.
There was much talk about language over the last few days. The vulgar language we have heard is essentially a panic reaction. It betrays a lack of an intelligent response, because there cannot be an intelligent response to what we have seen. We cannot invite people to appear in committee only to treat them in a way that would shame a schoolyard bully.
However, the numbers speak for themselves when it comes to the situation of the French language, both in Quebec and across Canada. The Liberal government does not care all that much about the decline of French, but it sure cares when someone points it out. This is the same government that intends to support a Supreme Court challenge of Bill 96, which seeks to strengthen the French language in Quebec.
I am talking about setbacks, failures and intrusions galore. I am talking about a lack of respect.
Of course, I could talk about secularism, but I will merely say that a secular state would never conceive of imposing Islamic mortgages on a level of government such as the Quebec government, which endorses state secularism. Quebec would not hesitate to eliminate the religious exemption that allows the worst hate speech to spread under the guise of religion.
I repeat, these are failures. In fact, the only good thing the Liberal government ever did with respect to language and secularism was convincing the Conservative Party to basically share its views, views that are extremely unpopular among Quebeckers.
The Phoenix pay service, a terrible failure, will now be replaced. This will not get us our money back. There is also the ArriveCAN failure. The repercussions, the spin‑offs, if you will, have now reached the billion‑dollar mark. This money has come out of the pockets of the Canadian state. It is one failure after another.
Consider the tens of thousands of businesses that were abandoned after receiving assistance from government programs during the pandemic. Given the labour shortages, inflation and interest rates, those businesses faced a highly complex situation. Many of them—we will never know the exact or the real number—had to declare bankruptcy and close down because of this government's ineptitude. This is another failure.
One failure on the international stage, which again is repeated and ongoing, relates to a lack of credibility. It is the inability to have a plan to reach the 2% investment target. It is the position on the war in Gaza and the inability to take the normal and increasingly internationally recognized step of recognizing the Palestinian state. Once again, it is a series of failures.
Bombardier, for example, is missing out on $5 billion in spin-offs. Meanwhile, Boeing will award contracts worth $400 million with the co-operation of the governments of Quebec and Canada. I doubt whether we will ever find out the real reasons behind that whole mess. It is one failure after another.
The government is incapable of doing its own work properly, yet it wants to do the work of others in their own areas of jurisdiction. The people have given it a mandate, but it is a minority mandate. This minority government, as I said, is a failure. Interference always takes longer, always costs more and never improves things. It is done at the cost of a series of subcontracts, whether we are talking about McKinsey, ArriveCAN or others of the kind. It is done at the cost of 109,000 more civil servants. That is on top of the subcontracts and the increasing duplications in Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. There is also the $40-billion deficit, which is no small matter.
To govern as a majority, purely for the sake of power, the government joined forces with the NDP. Rather than receiving its mandate from the people, the government receives its mandate from the NDP. It is a fool's bargain. If the NDP does not act soon, it will bring about its own demise. The government has two choices then. It can hold off on its aggressive centralization agenda, its abuse of the fiscal imbalance and abuse of spending power until the end of its mandate, which would normally run until late 2025, or it can call an election now to try to obtain that type of mandate, which I strongly doubt that Quebec will consider. It has no right to dupe Canadians or the parties in the House. As I said before, if the Prime Minister is so interested in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, he can go off and pursue a career in provincial politics, preferably in Ontario.
At the very least, however, what the government must do is acknowledge in every one of its actions the right to opt out with full compensation, with no conditions for Quebec and the provinces. At least its centralizing ideology could then be properly circumvented in a way that respects the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The main goal—and this is the spirit of this motion—is for the Canadian government to put an end to its increasingly numerous and increasingly crude and misguided abuses that fail to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. If the government does not do so, since it will have fun raising the issue in the next election, it will see how useful the Bloc Québécois really is.
1371 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:32:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to think that members of Parliament would put the people they represent first and foremost with respect to their interests. Whether it is the dental program, or the school food program that is providing nutrition to children or the national child care program, these are all programs that the Government of Canada, working with stakeholders and other levels of government, has moved forward with and that are being received well in all regions of the country.
Does the member not believe that the Government of Canada should be reflecting on the expectations of people in all regions of the country, which include the types of investments we are making today?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:33:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in a way, the answer is in the question.
I would like Quebeckers to hear someone stand up in Parliament and tell them, in English, to look at what the rest of Canada is doing better than they are, and to tell them that they are so bad that the federal government needs to develop programs that will be imposed on them with their own money. I think it is completely ridiculous to say that a Canadian is intrinsically superior to a Quebecker.
If good ideas are implemented in one place, they can be implemented in other places. Take, for example, child care services, whose model originated in Quebec, or pharmacare, whose model originated in Quebec. If the Canadian government feels entitled to copy what Quebec is doing right, I hope it will at least acknowledge that this is because Quebec is capable of doing it.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:33:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.
There are many things that divide us. There is no denying that, to be sure. However, there are some things that unite us. I think the hon. member will acknowledge that we, Conservatives, respect jurisdictions. That is a cornerstone of our political action. In fact, when we were in power, our government minded its own business, dealing with federal matters and letting the provinces make their own decisions. The result spoke for itself: The sovereigntist option lost support in the polls.
Conversely, as the leader of the Bloc Québécois demonstrated, what we have seen for the past nine years is a federal government that does not take care of its own business properly. Not only does it not look after its own affairs properly, but it also interferes in provincial jurisdictions. What are we seeing as a result? The independence movement is on the rise in Quebec. While that may be music to the ears of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, it is not necessarily a good thing. Two weeks ago in the National Assembly, the leader of the Parti Québécois cited the Liberal government's mismanagement of Canadian funds to justify independence.
My question is very simple: Why, then, did the Bloc Québécois vote for $500 billion in budgetary appropriations?
252 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:35:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity. However, there are a number of factors.
First, I acknowledge the Conservatives' new position of wanting to give unconditional health transfers, or transfers of any kind, to Quebec and the provinces.
I have a second piece of good news. We will hold the debate on independence. Indeed, the tide is turning, we are coming up on the third referendum and we will win it. There will be room for everyone in Quebec to continue in politics, including the members of Parliament.
There is a third thing. Let us get something straight in this slogan‑driven demagoguery. The Bloc Québécois has voted against every Liberal budget and every Liberal economic update. That said, the failure to vote in favour of appropriations in a number of cases amounts to replicating, as the Conservatives know all too well, the American model of government paralysis designed to prevent the state from functioning. The departments in question would be unable to issue paycheques. This is the simple explanation. We voted against the budgets and the updates, but the Conservatives can go ahead and keep repeating in French that the Bloc Québécois did this and in English that the NDP did something else.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:36:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his speech and his motion on things that matter to us as New Democrats, such as public services and health services, or pharmacare, which will require negotiation with the provinces, since the Quebec system is not perfect. All the unions in Quebec have unanimously called for public universal pharmacare. We could take a step forward together by engaging in discussions.
With respect to dental care, there is no interference, because the federal government does not tell Quebec how to manage its health care system; it pays dentists' bills directly. This will benefit four million Quebeckers who do not have dental insurance. Thousands of seniors have already received this care. It would be a shame if the Bloc Québécois opposed care for Quebec's seniors.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:37:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is wonderful to see the NDP recommending and hoping that the Canadian government will outsource public programs to the private sector, which will make a profit from the public program.
I will repeat the fundamental principle to the unions, the NDP and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie: There is nothing that a Canadian can do that a Quebecker cannot do, except perhaps extracting oil. Therefore, I invite everyone to commit to improving services in Quebec. We must invest in services in Quebec. The government does not need to negotiate with Quebec. It is supposed to transfer money unconditionally. That is what is missing.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:38:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what an inspiring speech. It is a tough act to follow. To illustrate just how much the federal government has interfered in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, I want to revisit what happened this week during question period.
This week, I asked the Minister of Transport a question, and I was basically saying that Quebeckers want to be masters in their own house, whereas the feds want to be masters everywhere. We see that with pharmacare, dental insurance and all kinds of jurisdictional encroachments.
In response, the Minister of Transport said that the Bloc Québécois was looking for a fight. He is always saying that. Not only does he say that, but he also says that the Bloc members used to be here for their passion and that today they are here for their pension. Such rhetoric is tired and stupid. I do not think the Bloc members are the only ones getting a pension. Reducing us to that is very rude.
I bring it up because I was initially going to use my speech to respond to the Minister of Transport. However, I think doing so would be mean-spirited and show that I was stooping to his level. I prefer to show the Minister of Transport what we are passionate about in this place: defending the interests of Quebec.
If we are to discuss jurisdictional interference, we must review the definition of what Canadian federalism is. We need to distinguish between two things. On the one hand, there is a unitary state, which holds all the powers. Anyone who has taken politics 101 knows this. On the other hand, there is federalism, which assumes the autonomy of the central government, meaning the federal government, but above all the autonomy of the federated states, in this case the provinces and Quebec. Any student who has taken law or political science knows that this means that, within their own jurisdictions, the provinces are autonomous. In consequence, in the Canadian context, this means that the Quebec state is autonomous.
It is obvious to my party that Quebec is capable of making its own decisions and implementing its own economic, social and cultural approaches to ensure that it continues to survive and thrive. Even Quebec federalists recognize this fact. That is why the vast majority of politicians in the National Assembly identify as autonomists, if not sovereigntists. That is the reality of Quebec politics. The Parti Québécois, the Coalition Avenir Québec and Québec Solidaire are all parties that want the Quebec nation to have more powers in order to secure its future. I do not mean to offend, but even the Liberal Party of Quebec supports the idea of more powers for Quebec, albeit in a different, somewhat half-hearted way. The evidence is clear. Many of the Quebec National Assembly's motions are supported by the Bloc Québécois. Every time the federal government tries to intrude on Quebec's jurisdictions, a motion is unanimously adopted by the National Assembly.
We could make this case just by looking at Quebec's history. There is no denying that every Quebec government has been determined to defend its autonomy. From Duplessis to Bourassa and even Legault, as well as Marois, Parizeau and Lévesque, successive Quebec governments have all sought to expand Quebec's powers. We saw this in rounds of constitutional negotiations, which were carried out to our detriment. We have also seen this in administrative agreements. Quebec is the only province with immigration powers. Quebec is the only province with specific agreements on workforce training.
Quebec society as a whole agrees on the need to defend Quebec's autonomy. Perhaps it was Benoît Pelletier who said it best. Let me quote him briefly:
... the history and current state of our federalism eloquently illustrate Quebec's profound attachment to its autonomy within the federal system. This is easily explained. The minority status of the Quebec people within Canada as a whole confers special value on Quebec's sphere of autonomy arising from the division of powers.
Benoît Pelletier is a federalist. However, he is a bit more informed than some others. He acknowledges that autonomy is a matter of survival for a minority nation. Quebec is a minority nation within Canada. Defending its autonomy is a matter of survival. This explains why other provinces easily accept the federal government's interference in their jurisdictions.
This brings me to a question that I think is central. I have been asking myself this question since I arrived in the House in 2019. Why are the Bloc Québécois members the only ones speaking out against the predatory federalism—I am choosing my words carefully—that is weakening the Quebec nation? Why do my Quebec colleagues in the Conservative Party and my Quebec colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP never condemn this system?
The answer is quite simple. It is because predatory federalism suits them. It is because, in a way, they live off it, politically speaking. What the Liberal Party and the NDP are trying to do now is use this predatory federalism to climb out of the basement of unpopularity. That is what they did with pharmacare and dental care. They are trying to use social issues that are outside the federal government's jurisdiction to escape their current state of unpopularity.
The strength of the federalists is primarily the same strength that any predator relies on. As we know, a predator is someone who survives at another's expense, who uses their power to take advantage of another's weakness. The strength of federalists lies in the tools they have at their disposal to bring the people of Quebec to their knees. When I say “tools”, I am referring, of course, to the spending power that creates the fiscal imbalance. It is this pernicious system that allows them to bring the people of Quebec to their knees. Jean Chrétien, in all his splendour, once had an epiphany. He realized that he could cut transfer payments without paying a political price. That is where the fiscal imbalance comes from.
I would point out that this predatory federalism also suits the Conservatives. Although they claim to be more respectful of Quebec's autonomy, we heard what the Conservative leader has said in recent months. He was looking to establish some sort of electoral dominance at Quebec's expense. When he publicly and shamelessly says that he is going to challenge Bill 21 and Bill 96, he is serving the interests of the English-speaking majority in the rest of Quebec and trying to score election points for his own rather simple purposes. He is trying to appeal to ethnocultural communities in the greater Toronto area. That way, he can say to Quebec that its autonomy is very low on its list of concerns.
The Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP respect Quebec's jurisdictions as long as it does not cause problems for them. If we take a closer look, we see that the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP are parties that assume that the federal state is above Quebec, that North America's only francophone nation should fall in line like the others and that Quebeckers should behave like Canadians, like everyone else. That is as typical of the Conservative Party, as it is of the NDP and the Liberal Party.
I will close with this. Members may recall the Prime Minister's unfortunate comment that people “do not care” about jurisdictional bickering. They may also recall the unfortunate statement made by the leader of the Conservative Party, who said that Quebec mayors are “incompetent” and that he would manage housing production. I would say this ultimately shows that federalists could not care less about what Canadian federalism is. If that is the case, it opens the door wide to our sovereignty goals.
I would say that what Quebeckers really do not care about are the federal government's excuses when it comes to immigration. They want immigration thresholds that are proportionate to our integration capacity, they want a system that meets the expectations of those who use it, and they want the federal government to reimburse Quebec for the services we have rendered. People do not care about the computer issues with Phoenix; they just want to be paid. People do not care about the issues with employment insurance; they want their benefits. Seniors do not care about the symbols of the monarchy; they want their pension to increase. Quebeckers do not care about the products of big oil, the those greedy oil companies that took $34 billion from us for a pipeline and will take $83 billion from us by 2035; they want a health care system that meets their needs and that is not underfunded.
Lastly, I think that a significant portion of the population of Quebec does not care about federalism.
1530 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:48:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Joliette.
I respect all members here in the House, who ultimately represent their constituents. However, I have a jurisdictional question. We respect jurisdictions because we have a government-to-government approach. In a way, I am going to echo the words of Premier Legault, who asked what purpose the Bloc Québécois serves in Ottawa. Our governments discuss issues between the government in Ottawa and the Quebec government. We do not discuss them with the Bloc Québécois.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:49:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could repeat the rather harsh words that Mr. Legault used to describe the Liberal government, but I will not pull an egregious stunt like that on my colleague. She can easily find out what he said in the media.
The Government of Quebec has been very critical of the implementation of pharmacare. The Government of Quebec was very critical of the implementation of dental care. It is not just Premier Legault, but all members of the National Assembly, who passed a motion telling the Liberal government that it was acting outside its jurisdiction. If that does not ring a bell for my colleague, I do not know how to make her come to her senses.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:50:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the provincial government recently had to take the federal Liberals to court over their inappropriate incursions into my province's jurisdictional right to develop its natural resources. The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently ruled against the federal Liberals and in favour of arguments from the provinces about how major resource projects should be approved in the country. The Liberals persist in violating provincial rights in this area.
Quebec has many natural resource projects that could be impacted by the Liberal government's inappropriate incursions into this jurisdiction, including its critical minerals strategy. Does the member believe that the principles in his party's motion today also apply to respecting the province's jurisdictional right to determine how it develops its natural resources?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:50:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. In fact, the Bloc Québécois has already introduced a bill to indicate that the provinces and Quebec should be responsible for any environmental assessments that deal with natural resource development.
However, there is something else that I would like to point out. I would go even farther than what my colleague is saying. I do not think it is right that Quebeckers, through their taxes, are being forced to finance a $34-billion pipeline that will do them absolutely no good. I do not think it is right that Quebeckers, through their taxes, are being forced to give $84 billion between now and 2035 to big oil, to multi-million dollar companies, when they do us absolutely no good. I would go even farther and say that I would allocate the money based on the natural resource development projects of each province and the Quebec nation.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:51:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois always says it is in favour of what is good for Quebec. Sometimes, it would be nice if it also looked at what is good for Quebeckers, for ordinary people who do not have dental insurance.
The NDP campaigned on a promise to come to Ottawa and secure this for people, and we did it. We are keeping our promises for the four million Quebeckers who have neither private nor public dental coverage. We have secured $13 billion over five years.
That is about $4 billion for Quebec that will be directly invested to help Quebeckers who could not afford dental care save money. Quebec has no program for seniors. Quebec has no program for teenagers. We are going to directly help people in need.
I was in my riding last week, and people were coming up to me and saying, “Thank you, Mr. Boulerice, for your work in Ottawa.”
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:52:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I—
Some hon. members: He is not allowed to say his name.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:52:46 a.m.
- Watch
Members may say their own name. They may not say the names of other members.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:52:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleague that what Quebeckers want is a health care system worthy of the name. The federal government is creating new programs after chronically underfunding the health care system. In a few years' time, it will slowly withdraw and put pressure on Quebec.
The dental insurance and pharmacare measures exist on paper only. The Government of Quebec candidly admits that it has no idea when they will materialize, because Ottawa did not consult with Quebec City. The only reason that pharmacare and dental insurance were introduced was to raise the Liberal Party and the NDP out of the polling basement. That is all.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
