44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 23, 2024 10:00AM
- May/23/24 11:34:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I would just like to correct him and point out that we do not say “supporter” in French for “support”. We say “appuyer” or “soutenir”. “Supporter” is an anglicism in this context.
The Bloc Québécois was not deluded when it came here to defend Quebec's interests. The reason there are 32 of us in the House is that Quebeckers understood that they needed us to defend their interests in the House because nobody else was doing it.
This being said, I would like to tell my colleague something. If we had voted against the appropriations, many employees of the federal government in Quebec would not have been paid. Many seniors would not have received their benefits, which are paid out by the federal government for now, until Quebec becomes independent.
Our goal here is not to sabotage the government just for the sake of sabotaging the government politically, for populist reasons. Our goal is to take concrete action to ensure that Quebec is always as high a priority as possible in the federal context until things change, and I think that change is coming fast.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:36:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. She confirms precisely what we have been saying: the Bloc Québécois voted for these budget appropriations, while there is an official agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. In the circumstances, it is impossible to defeat a budgetary vote.
The Bloc Québécois could have taken the time to work, study the credits and say they would not vote for them for such and such a reason, but no. These MPs voted as a bloc for each of the $500-billion items. Let them stop trying to be the adult in the room again. There was an agreement on the other side. The government could not fall, even if we voted against it. The Bloc Québécois could have stood with us and said it was against the current government's extravagant spending.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:37:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, former prime minister Stephen Harper inherited a health care accord that saw incremental increases in health care expenditures. A lot of Canadians are very much concerned with that, because when it came time to renew the health care accord, the Harper government did absolutely nothing. In fact, it cut back the 6% to 3%. I am not 100% sure of that figure, but I believe that to be factual.
Could the member specifically tell Canadians about the role of health care? Does the Conservative Party believe it is nothing more than a transfer of cash payments to provinces? Does it believe there is another role for health care delivery?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:37:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what is clear for the Conservative Party is that we must respect jurisdictions. Health transfers must be made to the provinces. The provinces are the masters of health care management.
We have no place interfering in provincial business, because health and education are provincial matters. Because Quebec is a big boy or a big girl, depending on how one looks at it, Quebec is capable of managing health care. On the federal side, we transfer the funds and we do not have to interfere as the Liberals do.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:38:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we often talk about jurisdiction, and a jurisdiction that we often exclude in this place is the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples. It is clear that in the case of Quebec, there have been many instances where the government has attempted to claw jurisdiction that is not necessarily the jurisdiction that is most appropriate for first nations.
Could the member elaborate on whether his party would support the claims of indigenous people, particularly first nations, who claim that Quebec is attempting to erase their history?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:39:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will not answer on behalf of the Quebec government, but I can say that relations between the Quebec government and indigenous people are going very well. This is the place, I think, where treaties and ways of working with indigenous communities are among the best in Canada.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in the midst of an identity crisis.
The Bloc Québécois is trying to go in two totally different directions. First, the Bloc Québécois claims to be a separatist party whose goal is to finally get rid of the federal government's control over the Quebec nation and the lives of Quebeckers. Then, according to its leader, the Bloc Québécois is a “progressive, socially democratic” party. It shares the same ideology as the current Liberal Prime Minister. The Bloc wants a big government that directs the economy with huge taxes, deficits, regulations, programs and industry subsidies. It wants a government that extends its tentacles everywhere.
Although I do not share these two objectives, namely socialism and sovereignty, a party in Quebec's National Assembly can coherently propose both at the same time. It can propose the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada and the creation of a massive welfare state in Quebec. I think it is a bad idea, but at least we know that it could be part of a coherent approach. The problem is that the Bloc Québécois is not a provincial party in the Quebec National Assembly. It is a federal party in Ottawa, and its socially democratic demands are helping to expand the size of the federal government.
In this zero-sum game, when the federal government has more money and power, this leaves less money and power for Quebec and Quebeckers. Every taxpayer dollar spent in Ottawa leaves a dollar less for the Government of Quebec or Quebec taxpayers. Do not take it from me; this comes from Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon, or PSPP. He calculated that Quebeckers pay $82 billion to Ottawa in taxes. Most of the taxes that Quebeckers pay the federal government goes back to Quebeckers in the form of child benefits, payments for seniors or transfers for health care and social services that are received by the Government of Quebec. PSPP seems to be saying that there is even more money that does not go back to Quebec. Where did that money go? It went to budgetary appropriations.
Budgetary appropriations refer to money that is voted on in Parliament and spent to fund the bureaucracy, consultants, agencies, contributions to corporations, and interest groups. It is basically the big federal monster in Ottawa that sovereignists want to separate from.
One would think that a separatist party would have voted against all the budget allocations that feed this federal monster, but that is not what happened. In fact, since arriving in the House of Commons in 2019, the leader of the Bloc Québécois has voted in favour of all of this Liberal Prime Minister's budget allocations. On 205 occasions, the Bloc leader has voted to authorize a total of $500 billion in additional government spending. That is almost equal to Quebec's GDP. We are talking about $500 billion, half a trillion dollars. That money did not go toward old age security or health, since such expenditures are already set out in legislation and we do not need to vote to authorize them. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the federal machine in Ottawa, in favour of hiring an additional 100,000 public servants and pumping 50% more money into the federal bureaucracy. The Bloc voted to double spending on private consultants. It voted for $21 billion in spending, or $1,400 per Quebec family, for federal consultants.
This includes financing ArriveCAN, which cost $25 million, when the Liberal government promised it would cost only $80,000.
Again, I find it fascinating that a Quebec party that calls itself separatist never supports measures seeking to reduce the federal tax burden shouldered by Quebeckers. It never supports income tax cuts. One would think a separatist party would always oppose Quebeckers being forced to send their money to Ottawa, but this is not true for Bloc Québécois members. They want, in their own words, to radically increase taxes. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C-11, which gives the CRTC, a federal agency, full control over what Quebeckers can see and post on social media.
Even its support of Radio-Canada is paradoxical. The Bloc Québécois wants to separate from Canada, which would expel Radio-Canada from Quebec, but at the same time, it says that Radio-Canada is essential to the culture and media of Quebec. Apparently, it believes that Canada and the federal government are essential to Quebec life. This is not very separatist of them either.
The real question is, how would a sovereign Quebec under the leader of the Bloc Québécois be different from the Canada led by the current Prime Minister? The Bloc Québécois supports high taxes, massive federal debt and a bloated bureaucracy that meddles in everything but is good at nothing.
We should also remember that the Bloc Québécois supports a justice system that frees repeat offenders and bans hunting rifles. In fact, an independent Quebec with the leader of the Bloc Québécois as premier would be almost identical to the federal state led by the current Prime Minister.
Luckily for the Bloc Québécois, its fantasies of a welfare state have already become very real in Canada under the current Prime Minister, with all the government programs, bureaucracy, taxes, deficits and regulations. Everyone depends on the government. This is a dream for left-wing ideologues like the leaders of the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, but it is a nightmare for the working class, with housing, food and everything else being unaffordable. There is more homelessness, poverty and desperation.
The Bloc Québécois does not offer Quebeckers either sovereignty or independence. Instead, it offers a more costly, centralist and indebted federal government, exactly like the Liberals. The Liberal Bloc is not a pro-independence party but a pro-dependence party. It defends what it depends on. The Bloc Québécois depends on the federal government for its pensions and paycheques and for all its ideological dreams, which are in reality centralist.
However, with our common-sense plan, we will axe the tax, build the homes, not the bureaucracy, and fix the budget by capping spending and cutting waste. In short, with a small federal government, we will let Quebeckers make their own decisions. They could decide to keep more money in their pockets or to give more money to their government in Quebec City. It will be up to them. This is a message for Quebeckers: With the Liberal Bloc, the federal government is master of your house, but with the common-sense Conservatives, Quebeckers will be master of their own house.
Thank you very much.
1192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:49:27 a.m.
- Watch
I listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition telling us that he has discovered a past, present and future passion for provincial autonomy. Under the Harper government, that may not have been how Premier Charest, the darling of Quebec Conservatives, felt about it, but never mind.
Let us fast-forward to today. Since the Leader of the Opposition is so keen on respecting provincial jurisdictions, can he promise here and now that a future Conservative government will never push through an oil or gas pipeline project without Quebec's consent?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:50:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know why the Bloc Québécois does not want the approach of the Harper years, because in the Harper years we reduced the role of the federal government, we decentralized powers and respected the powers of the provinces, which eliminated the Bloc Québécois.
At that time, the Bloc Québécois had four seats. Quebeckers wondered why they needed the Bloc Québécois, and the Conservatives let them make their own decisions. Furthermore, they had autonomy and a Prime Minister who respected Quebec. When it came to issues they did not agree on, the federal government did not interfere in their business, so they were okay.
Now the Bloc Québécois's entire raison d'être revolves around this centralist Prime Minister. That is why we saw this lovefest yesterday between the Prime Minister and the Bloc Québécois, who were applauding one another.
We are the nightmare of the Bloc-Liberal coalition, but we will be wonderful for people who respect the autonomy of all provinces, including Quebec.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:51:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think of programs like the national dental program, and the national pharmacare program that is being proposed. I think of the health care agreements, where we saw a federal government demonstrate a tangible interest in developing more on mental health and long-term care. The federal government, through the Canada Health Act, does have a very important role to play in delivering health care in our communities.
The question I have for the member is this: Contrary to what the former Conservative speaker stated, does the current leader of the Conservative Party believe that the federal government has more of a role than just providing cash to provinces?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:52:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if the government does have more of a role, then that role has been to extend wait times and make emergency rooms even more full of people. Since the Prime Minister said he was going to get more involved in health care, wait times have doubled, so if he wants the power, he has to take the responsibility and explain why he has failed so badly.
Then he talks about other grand federal programs, which is interesting, such as a dental program that has not cleaned a single tooth. There is a housing program that has doubled the cost of housing and increased severe homelessness by 88%. Then there is the pharmacare program, which has not delivered a single jar of medicine and which, if actually implemented, would ban Canadians from having their private drug plans.
The Prime Minister and the NDP want to roll back the rights that unions have fought so hard and so long to secure. Our labour movement fought too hard to secure private drug plans, and we will never let a big, centralizing, bureaucratic government in Ottawa take those rights away from workers.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:53:26 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unions across the country are in support of universal pharmacare and the delivery of diabetes medication to Canadians. The Leader of the Opposition and his family have one of the best health care plans in the country. I met a mother who was so concerned about how she cannot afford medication, and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:53:47 a.m.
- Watch
I cannot hear the question, and I am sure the official opposition leader is having a hard time hearing the question because his own members are heckling the member for Victoria. I would ask them to hold back and, if they have questions and comments, to wait until the appropriate time.
The hon. member for Victoria.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:54:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the mom told me she could barely think about anything except how much the medication and devices cost for her daughter who has diabetes. She is three or four years old. I do not know how anyone could look that little girl in the eye and say that she does not deserve access to life-saving medication.
Why does the member think that he and his family deserve coverage and that this family and families just like it across Canada do not?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:54:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, if the member thinks that parliamentarians have coverage that is too good, she could put forward a motion to cut it back. Instead, what she has done is propose to cut back drug plans for everyday Canadians, particularly unionized Canadians. Roughly 90% of Canadians have some drug coverage, but the bill that the NDP and the Liberals have put forward would require a single payer. “Single payer” means only a federal government plan, so she would ban private and even provincial plans and replace them with a federal government plan. A government that cannot even figure out how to deliver a passport would suddenly become responsible for providing people with drug coverage.
How does the member look hard-working Canadians in the eye while she promises to take away their hard-won drug coverage secured through collective bargaining?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:55:30 a.m.
- Watch
Once again, I would like to remind all members of the House not to disturb others who have the floor, not to make comments or ask them questions. There are appropriate times to do that.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:56:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
I rise—
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:56:13 a.m.
- Watch
I would ask those who are having discussions to take them out of the House and into the lobby. That would be more appropriate, especially after what I just said.
The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski may continue.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:59:05 a.m.
- Watch
Order. I must ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to see what is happening outside the chamber. There seems to be a lot of noise. Could he ask people to continue their discussions outside?
The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski may continue.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 11:59:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the troubling motion that the Bloc Québécois moved today and that we are trying to amend. This motion poses serious issues for the future of Quebeckers and Canada as a whole.
I will begin by saying that the NDP is unequivocally committed to respecting Quebec and we recognize that Quebec is a distinct nation within Canada. In fact, the NDP is proud to have recognized that when it adopted the Sherbrooke declaration several years ago under our former leader Jack Layton, with whom I had the privilege of serving.
I also want to recognize Quebec's unique history when it comes to social programs and the concept of collective well-being. The federal government must take a leadership role and make vital investments to meet the needs of Quebeckers and Canadians.
It is clear from Quebec's cultural history that the Quebec nation has a rich heritage. The NDP is progressive and we recognize that Quebec is a nation and that it both has and deserves the right to self-determination. We recognized this long before the Liberals and Conservatives. The Quiet Revolution was one of the great progressive and social democratic revolutions, not only in the history of Quebec, but also in the history of North America. It marks the moment when Quebeckers took their destiny into their own hands.
Our former leaders, Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair, as well as our current leader from Burnaby South have made it clear: Quebec is a nation with its own history. Federal decisions must be made with that reality in mind. It is clear—
277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
