SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

May/23/24 12:57:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we share a certain affinity in our way of seeing society. The NDP's values occasionally intersect with ours. On certain matters, however, we have a very hard time seeing eye to eye. We often see the NDP, at the risk of being inconsistent, abandon its values to align itself with a government so it can say that it came up with a certain idea or that it is the one changing people's lives. In reality, these are palliative measures. The NDP government's proposals are palliative proposals. What we want is to create an economically healthy Quebec, and that will require the unconditional health transfers that Quebec is owed.

113 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

May/23/24 12:58:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean. I will begin my remarks by saying that it pains me to see the Bloc and the Conservatives arguing, when they are often on the same wavelength. Getting to the substance of my speech, I would like to examine the assumptions underlying this motion. The first is that the federal government is some kind of centralizing monster that is trying to stifle Quebeckers' aspirations. We have been hearing this narrative for as long as I can remember. I will provide some concrete examples to illustrate that the federal government does not want to manage everything, whenever possible, even when it comes to its own jurisdictions. It prefers to delegate responsibilities to the provinces so that they can manage their own affairs, even if it is a federal jurisdiction. Let us consider the Fisheries Act. It is clearly a federal statute under the Constitution of Canada. The federal government signed an equivalency agreement with Quebec to enable the province to implement this act and its regulations. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is my second example. People had doubts about whether the federal government had jurisdiction in this matter. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution did in fact fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government did not say that it wanted this legislation to apply to all the provinces in order to interfere with the provinces and administer this legislation. The federal government simply said that if a province had an equivalent system, as Quebec and British Columbia do, then that province's system would apply. This is a second example of how the federal government does not want to get involved in everything. Often, even when it comes to its own jurisdiction, the federal government does not want to get involved and would rather delegate responsibility to the provinces. Immigration is another example of this. Prime Minister Mulroney was a close friend of the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. After his passing, she spoke eloquently about his friendship. She used to sing for him and his family. It was very touching. Prime Minister Mulroney signed an agreement with Quebec to allow it to decide who would be a permanent resident in the province of Quebec. Yes, some things are centralized. Some things are centralized, but they are centralized for practical and technological reasons. For example, it is nice outside today. Let us talk about the weather. The federal government handles the weather, because technologically speaking, weather forecasts are quite complex. They require extremely sophisticated systems. So the federal government is in charge of that, but it is not centralized to stifle Quebeckers' aspirations. It comes down to practicality. It is better to centralize it than have the provinces operate their own weather forecasting systems. Another example is communications. Canada does not have a very big population. We have about 40 million people. That is about the same population as California. I do not know what the population of New York or Florida is. There are not many of us, and we are up against web giants, big companies with enormous financial and technological power. In Canada, we counterbalance that power with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. It tries to protect the cultural interests of Quebec and the rest of Canada by opposing the web giants, in certain situations at least. Many examples show that centralization is not a bad thing. There are other examples where we can see quite clearly that the federal government prefers to have certain files handled by the provinces, even though they fall under its jurisdiction. I would also like to refer to point (b) of the motion, where it is requested that the House “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'”. This observation is not very nuanced, and, in response, I would say that it is true in some cases but not in others. When it comes to primary and secondary education, Quebeckers and the citizens of the other provinces are adamant that the federal government should stay out of it. The federal government does not want to get involved. There are no issues there. People also assume that post-secondary education is a provincial matter, but let us consider what the Government of Quebec is doing to Concordia University and McGill University. Quebec's CAQ government is chipping away at McGill University, which is ranked 28th in the world. It is a proudly québécois university that many French-speaking Quebeckers attend. If people knew about what is happening between McGill and the Government of Quebec, I think they would ask the federal government to interfere—to interfere financially, I dare say. They would ask the federal government to inject funds to bridge the massive gap. I would have said “make up the shortfall”, but the provincial government really is creating a massive gap. I think that the business community, especially the high-tech community, would ask the federal government to interfere financially because these sectors depend on research to move forward. Quebec's prosperity depends heavily on the health of the tech sector. Furthermore, we know that Quebec's business community has concerns about the labour supply. I would now like to talk about the pandemic. What happened during the pandemic? The federal government used its spending power to provide what amounted to social assistance to many Canadians and, by the way, to many businesses. Billions and billions of dollars were paid out. There were no complaints back then. Mr. Legault's government was not complaining about federal government interference. There was no complaining at the time, and I am not hearing any complaints from Quebeckers about the national dental care program. It is true, in some cases, that Quebeckers are hell-bent on protecting provincial jurisdiction, but in other cases, they want their interests to come first and their needs to be addressed.

1060 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/23/24 1:07:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank him for putting something into each sentence of his speech that would provoke questions or reactions from me and other members from the Bloc Québécois. I would need 15 minutes to ask all my questions and challenge my colleague on some of his claims, but I will try to be more constructive. First, I would tell him that 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March want the federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions to be respected. Whether it is about health care or anything else, 82% say that everybody should mind their own business. That is clear. I particularly liked the example my colleague gave about the success of centralization when he mentioned the CRTC. This example is of particular interest to me because, first of all, I worked closely with the government to improve the Broadcasting Act with Bill C-11, and because I am a strong supporter of culture, language and all that. However, I was taken aback to hear the CRTC characterized as a centralization success story. Without the intervention of the Bloc Québécois, almost no protections for francophone culture and Quebec broadcasters would have been included in Bill C‑11, which the CRTC is currently looking at. I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of the idea that the Bloc Québécois has been promoting for years: to create what would essentially be a Quebec version of the CRTC to manage more to benefit—

268 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/23/24 1:09:15 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

7 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/23/24 1:09:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with that idea. I heard those arguments when we were debating Bill C‑11, but I truly believe that there are advantages to having the provinces, the Quebec nation, first nations and every other group of Canadians work together to act as a counterbalance to this power south of the border that I am just as wary of as the member. It takes a counterbalance. If we are divided in 10, each with their own communications regulator, I think that will weaken us in the long term. Honestly, I very sincerely believe that.

99 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/23/24 1:10:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Toronto is a big city. Montreal is a global city; I think this fact certainly offends many in the Bloc and certain independentists in Quebec, who are constantly undermining Montreal's position. My colleague talked about McGill, which is a world-class university. McGill draws people from around the world to Montreal, not only because of its culture but also because it is an education centre. However, we see McGill having to go to court to defend the right of students to be educated, to challenge the unconstitutional attack on a world-class institution. What does my colleague think about a government that attacks an institution that is this respected around the world just for partisan points to please the sovereigntists?

123 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

May/23/24 1:11:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has touched on something I care deeply about. With a few others, I met the president of McGill, Deep Saini, yesterday. I thought I knew how badly McGill is being treated by the Quebec government. I did not know the half of it until I really saw the facts. It is the 28th-best university in the world. Its graduates have gone on to create companies such as Intel. What is good for McGill is good for Quebec in many ways. It is good for the Quebec economy and Quebec culture. I am quite offended by the fact that the provincial government of Quebec is undermining the province and all its citizens; it does not really matter whether they are French speakers or English speakers. It is undermining the province by targeting two institutions such as McGill and Concordia. I think it is a shame.

149 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

May/23/24 1:12:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I will get straight to the point. Criticizing the federal government's “interference” in provincial and territorial jurisdiction is not only deeply flawed but also quite unfair. It overlooks the collaborative nature of Canada's federal system. By working together, both levels of the government can address complex issues that transcend regional boundaries, fostering a more cohesive and prosperous nation. In reality, Canada's unique federal structure grants provinces and territories more autonomy to implement programs and policies tailored to their residents while also providing a platform to showcase their strengths on the global stage. This creates a win-win situation, enabling Canadians, including Quebeckers, to enjoy numerous social and economic benefits unparalleled elsewhere. Let me briefly touch on Quebec's unique identity within Canada, which is defined by its rich cultural heritage, distinct language, legal system and historical significance. These elements contribute to Quebec's special status and influence its interaction within the Canadian federation. Quebec boasts a vibrant and distinct cultural scene deeply rooted in its French heritage. The province is known for its contributions to literature, music, theatre, cinema and visual arts. Annual events such as the Montreal international jazz festival and the Quebec Winter Carnival celebrate Québécois culture and attract visitors from around the world. The preservation of French culture is central to Quebec's identity and influences its social and political life. Quebec's legal system is based on civil law inherited from the French Napoleonic Code, unlike the rest of Canada, which follows the common law system. This difference underscores Quebec's unique legal traditions and governance structures, affecting everything from property rights to family law. Quebec has a distinct historical trajectory within Canada. Quebec has a strong sense of political autonomy. The province has its own immigration policies and pension plan. Quebec's education system reflects its unique identity with a distinct structure and curriculum that emphasizes French language and Québécois culture. Institutions like Université de Montréal and Université Laval are key cultural and educational pillars that foster a strong sense of provincial identity. Quebec plays a vital role in Canada's economy, with strengths in sectors like aerospace, information technology, biotechnology and energy. The province's economic policies often reflect its unique priorities, including the promotion of French-language businesses and industries. Quebec is known for its progressive social policies, including affordable child care, generous parental leave and robust public health care. These policies reflect the province's commitment to social welfare and contribute to its distinct social fabric. Quebec's unique identity is a source of pride for its residents and adds to the diversity and richness of the Canadian federation. Balancing this distinctiveness with its role within Canada continues to shape Quebec's social, cultural and political landscape. While certain sectors are primarily under provincial jurisdiction in Canada, the federal government can play and has played a significant role in supporting these areas through various mechanisms. The federal government provides financial support to provinces through transfer payments such as the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer. These funds help provinces deliver essential services like health care, post-secondary education and social services. Additionally, equalization payments ensure that all provinces, including Quebec, have comparable levels of public services despite differences in revenue-generating capacities. The federal government can establish national standards and guidelines to promote consistency and quality across the country. For example, through the Canada Health Act, the federal government sets principles for health care delivery. The federal government can initiate and has initiated targeted funding programs to address specific needs. For example, it has invested in infrastructure projects like highways and public transit systems, thus enhancing transportation networks. It has also funded education initiatives such as skills training and research grants to bolster provincial education systems. Federal and provincial governments, including Quebec, can collaborate and have done so, through intergovernmental agreements. These agreements facilitate joint efforts on shared priorities such as improving health care delivery, addressing climate change and enhancing economic development. The federal government can support provinces, including Quebec, by conducting research and sharing data that inform policy decisions. Federal agencies and institutions can provide valuable insights into best practices and emerging trends, helping provinces design effective programs. By leveraging available mechanisms, the federal government has complemented provincial efforts, including Quebec's, ensuring that Canadians have access to high-quality services regardless of where they live. With respect to affordability, Canadians in every region and of all ages benefit from the federal government's fiscally responsible and people-driven economic plan. The Canada-wide early learning and child care plan is a great example of collaboration between the federal government and the provinces. We are strengthening the affordable child care system already in place in Quebec by helping to create more child care spaces. We are also supporting about 3.5 million families across Canada annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit. We will continue to work with provinces as we launch a national school food program. We have increased old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and older by 10%. We also delivered the first enhanced quarterly Canada workers' benefit payments to our lowest-paid and often most essential workers, with a family receiving a total benefit of up to $2,616 last year. Our new Canada disability benefit would increase the financial well-being of low-income Canadians with disabilities in every region of the country. On top of the laundry list of measures I just mentioned, we are also working with provinces to deliver improved health care to Canadians. Last year, we committed nearly $200 billion over 10 years to strengthen public health care for Canadians, including record health transfers and tailored bilateral agreements. This year, we introduced legislation to launch the first phase of national universal pharmacare in Canada, which would provide universal single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. We are, of course, making historic investments in affordable dental care, which is essential not only for oral health but also for overall health. Thanks to the federal government's efforts to work with provinces to build more housing faster across Canada, together we are on track to build nearly four million homes by the end of 2031. We have been steadfast in our efforts to collaborate with provinces and territories to build a better and fairer Canada, and these efforts have indeed borne fruit. However, it is crucial that we maintain the momentum. By continuing to work with our partners at all levels of government, we can drive our economy towards inclusive growth and ensure that the promise of Canada remains attainable for everyone. Therefore, I urge hon. members to reject today's misguided motion.

1149 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/23/24 1:21:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I notice, when I hear the member's comments, is that there is a lack of understanding and a lack of a desire to fully understand the reality of Quebec, which is perhaps a society where the need for this sort of respect for jurisdictions is felt even more strongly. I understand the reality of my colleague, who lives in a multicultural environment, where people are not as bothered by the federal government sticking its nose in everywhere. In Quebec, however, the reality is different. What I see is that my colleague does not seem to understand or grasp the distinct nature of the Quebec nation. In terms of the federal government's responsibility for health care, for example, the problem is that the federal government is not fulfilling its obligations, which are to transfer money to Quebec and the provinces for the management of their health care systems. This failure to live up to its obligations is creating the problems that Quebec and the provinces are experiencing with their health care systems, and this is preventing them from being able to resolve them. The federal government comes clomping in with its big boots, saying it is going to interfere in the province's areas of jurisdiction and solve its problems. I would like to hear from my colleague on this subject, but I would especially like him to reassure me that he does understand the distinct nature of Quebec and certain other regions of Canada that are not necessarily as multicultural as Canada as a whole.

260 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/23/24 1:22:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member does not seem to understand that the Canadian federal system is collaborative in nature. He talked about health care, but in the last speech by one of his colleagues I did not see him react to the question posed by an NDP member about the 600,000 Quebeckers who have registered for the Canada dental care plan. It is not just a question of jurisdiction; what is important is that the affordability issues faced by Canadians should be addressed by all levels of government working collaboratively.

93 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/23/24 1:23:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, and I know that he has a lot of knowledge about economic development and what is happening in the different provinces, particularly in Quebec, around a clean economy and the kind of innovation that we need in order to work toward a better, carbon-free future. We know there have been historic investments made in Quebec by Northvolt and in other industries. My question for the member is this: What would happen if the federal government did not make these investments?

91 words

Mr. Chandra Arya

May/23/24 1:24:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed Canada is at the forefront of many advanced technologies, like artificial intelligence. Indeed Quebec is quite strong when it comes to the clean economy and knowledge-based industries, especially in artificial intelligence. Quebec is also good in aerospace and other allied industries. However, all these industries are on the global stage because of the active involvement of the federal government over a period of time. Without the federal government's investments in these advanced technologies, Quebec would not have attained the position it has, and without continued investments by the federal government, Quebec would not reach the stage where we would see Canada and Quebec's technologies at the forefront of the global knowledge-based economy.

119 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/23/24 1:25:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of warming up the crowd for my colleague from Terrebonne. I am pleased to do that. I listened to a number of the speeches that were given by my colleagues before me. I would like to reread the text of the motion because, obviously, we are going to be talking about it all day. It states, and I quote: 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. The last sentence is a bit contradictory because the federal government should never interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories. I want to come back to paragraph (b) of our motion today, because earlier, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis referred to it and implied that it was a bit ridiculous. I want to reiterate the part in quotation marks, which states, “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”. We did not pull that out of thin air. The Prime Minister himself is the one who said that. Members are calling into question the fact that that is not true, but 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March said that they were concerned about respect for federal, provincial—in this case Quebec—and municipal jurisdictions. That is important. That means that people do care, to use the words of the Prime Minister. Nothing annoys me more than someone who does not mind their own business and comes in and does something that is someone else's responsibility just so they can take credit for it. Imagine if today I decided to recognize a member rising on a point of order. You would tell me to sit down in short order, Madam Speaker, and rightly so. That is how Quebeckers feel when the federal government barges in on our jurisdictions. This tension between the federal government and Quebec over respect for jurisdictions is nothing new, and it is not just a matter of sovereignists trying to pick a fight. Robert Bourassa complained about it. Was there anyone more federalist and Liberal than him in Quebec provincial politics? Federal interference is seen not only as a violation of Quebec's and the provinces' autonomy, but also as an obstacle to the development and vitality of the Quebec nation. Nearly all successive governments in the National Assembly have felt that way. I repeat: 82% of Quebeckers believe that the federal government should mind its own business. Elected officials are not the only ones who think so. When we ask the government to mind its own business, it should start by doing what it is expected to do properly. For example, it should find out where taxpayers' money is going before it realizes that $1 billion has been wasted on consultants or small businesses that are not always competent and that are hired to do things like create an app to manage incoming travellers at the border during a pandemic. That is just an example, of course. Minding its own business also means fixing the Phoenix fiasco. Even today, we members—I am not the only one—still have to help our constituents, who are often owed tens of thousands of dollars by the government. They live in the kind of hardship we would not wish on anyone, and which is certainly undeserved, given the efforts they have put into saving for retirement all their lives. They come to our offices because the government still owes them $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 because of the problems with Phoenix, which it is unable to solve. Minding its own business also means not trying to impose conditions on health transfers to Quebec and the provinces, because the federal government knows nothing about Quebec's health care system. In fact, by not contributing to the health care system in Quebec and the provinces, it has contributed to the health care disaster we are currently experiencing. Now, I am certain I am going to hear the NDP and the Liberals stand up and say that 600,000 Quebeckers are happy to have a dental plan. However, if the federal government had transferred adequate amounts to Quebec and the provinces over the years so they could fund their health care systems, and if Quebeckers wanted a dental plan that covered everyone, we would have the means to afford it, just as we have introduced pharmacare and child care. We are capable of creating social programs that reflect the richness of the Quebec nation and its values. Minding its own business also means no longer pretending to care about seniors. I know I am hitting a nerve with my colleague from Shefford. People aged 65 to 74 are being left to suffer in poverty because the federal government does not want to include them in its plan to increase old age pensions. It is completely ridiculous, inexplicable and inexcusable. Not a week goes by that I do not receive emails and calls from my constituents aged 65 to 74, who are wondering what is going on. They are wondering if they are going to get the increase. The answer is no. The Bloc Québécois continues to work on this issue. Seniors aged 65 to 74 can rest assured that we will always be on their side. We will also be there for people aged 75 and over in order to ensure fairness. We do not want two classes of seniors. If the federal government would mind its own business and look after its own affairs like everyone else does, we would not be in this situation. Minding its own business also means no longer pretending to care about defending French, considering the members opposite want to challenge Bill 96, a law that was democratically passed by the National Assembly of Quebec, which knows better than Ottawa how to counter the decline of French in Quebec, in Canada and even in North America. Quebec is the last francophone bastion in North America; it is the cradle of French culture and the French language. No one knows better than Quebec how to defend the French language and reverse its decline. The concept of federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions is taught in Quebec schools in grade 10. This means that in Quebec, 14- and 15-year-old students know what falls under federal jurisdiction, what falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, and what falls under municipal jurisdiction. They learn this at school when they are 14 or 15 years old. These young people learn that and take an interest in politics for a little while. They look at what is going on, and then they see that the Parliament in Ottawa is completely out in left field. It is not minding its own business at all. They scratch their heads and wonder why adults who have been elected to Parliament do not even know something they just learned at school at the age of 14. There is an explanation for that. For some time now, we have been witnessing the exploitation of people's ignorance. The public is being bombarded with insipid, meaningless slogans. Crass disinformation is being propagated left and right—mostly from the right—but we see that it is working. People swallow it without asking too many questions. This is sad and dangerous for democracy. One of the teachings of Socrates—this is going to make me sound learned—says that a democracy can only work if the people are educated. These are worrying times where politicians are exploiting ignorance rather than contributing to building a better-informed society and citizens capable of critical thinking. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do the right thing, to respect the institutions, to respect our duty to our constituents. That means respecting the powers of each level of government and the fact that each level of government must do its job properly.

1404 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/23/24 1:34:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him a question that I have already asked. I would like to hear his comments. Does he think that the members of the Bloc Québécois, who surely represent their constituents, represent the Government of Quebec?

53 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

May/23/24 1:34:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle. If she follows the workings of the House a bit—and I am sure she does so diligently—she knows very well that the Bloc Québécois represents the Quebec National Assembly, the elected representatives of the people of Quebec and, ideally, the consensus of the National Assembly. Above all, we respect, first and foremost, the decisions that are made in Quebec's National Assembly, because that is what best represents the interests of Quebeckers.

95 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/23/24 1:35:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for warming up the room. It feels like enthusiasm for respecting jurisdictions has reached a fever pitch. I have a question for him about the legitimacy of the Liberal government's intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions, knowing that it received a minority mandate. I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.

63 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

May/23/24 1:35:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope I have 15 minutes to answer the question asked by my colleague from Terrebonne, because I have a lot to say on the matter. It is disturbing to see that a government given a minority mandate by the people, instead of respecting the will of the people, would sidle up to another opposition party and govern as a majority government would, with policies and legislation that, perhaps well-intentioned, nevertheless violate certain principles, including respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. No, I do not think the government has the legitimacy to govern as it is governing.

103 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/23/24 1:36:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on Monday, we celebrated National Patriots Day. Our patriots fought and were sometimes exiled or even hanged for defending Quebeckers' right to manage their own affairs. In 1838, following the patriots' rebellion, Quebec lay in ruins. As the fires of British repression raged, one thought prevailed: How do we rid ourselves of these darn francophones who refuse to bow down to Queen Victoria and the interests of the British businessmen who dominate the colony? What can we do to create a dominion loyal to the British Empire and stop Quebeckers from rebelling again? The solution was obvious: Announce the creation of a confederation. In a confederation, the provinces have most of the power. Quebeckers can govern themselves in peace without too much interference. Later, we can impose a federation on them without asking their opinion. Boom! Just like that, the Canadian federation was born, with a nice lie at the starting gate so the francophones would no longer rise up. In English Canada, however, the measure did not meet with unanimous approval. Why make concessions to the losers? The Constitution of 1867 was therefore based on a lie designed to reconcile the irreconcilable: on the one hand, the Quebec people's desire for self-determination, and on the other, the desire for unity of the citizens of British origin. The whole history of the federal system is there, a tug-of-war between those who believe the real power is in Quebec and those who believe the real power is in Ottawa. It is ironic that I, a separatist MP, have to remind the House yet again of how the Canadian Constitution works, whereas the government never misses an opportunity to remind us that the Constitution should not be touched and to say that all the issues related to it do not matter to Canadians and Quebeckers or that Quebeckers do not care about jurisdictions. It is all the more ironic given that the Constitution I am talking about is the one that was imposed in secret by the father of the current Prime Minister, during the night of the long knives in 1982. Since then, the Liberal Party's tendency has grown stronger. Increasingly, English-speaking Canada wants Ottawa to be its real government, the one that manages the bulk of public services. Conversely, Quebec has made a different choice. All the polls show it, as my colleagues have pointed out. When Quebeckers are asked whether Quebec or Ottawa should manage each area of jurisdiction in isolation, they overwhelmingly answer Quebec, every time. Many of the measures presented in the latest budget, for example, have noble objectives: to take care of people affected by the difficult economic conditions we face today. The problem is that these measures do not reflect the different realities. I do not think I am teaching my colleagues anything when I say that Canada, in its current state, is quite diverse. Realities are very different in Quebec and in Alberta, for example. However, with all the good faith in the world, it was inevitable that, without prior consultation with the provinces, the programs would be ill adapted. Health and housing are not federal responsibilities. The House of Commons has no business touching those things. Why? Because Quebeckers believe their real government is in Quebec City. As long as that is the case, the concept of the fiscal imbalance will persist. By fiscal imbalance, I mean the fact that the provinces have insufficient financial means to fulfill their own responsibilities, while the federal government could, if it wished, record surpluses—we do not know how it manages to run a deficit—to fulfill the responsibilities that flow from its jurisdictions. Bernard Landry once said that the needs are in the provinces, but the money is in Ottawa. Although the federal government tries to deny its existence, the fiscal imbalance is a well-known concept and a major issue that has been recognized since the 1990s. As the population ages, the cost of Quebec's social programs is rising rapidly. The Government of Quebec alone should determine where social program funds should go. Since Quebec is systematically underfunded, we might wonder, and we often do, whether the Liberal Party believes a Quebecker is worth less than a Canadian. The Government of Quebec is shouting itself hoarse asking for health transfers. What does the federal government have to say in response? It responds with even more intrusions into Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. In the specific case of the dental insurance program we are talking about today, it is an intrusion into a program already covered by the Quebec health insurance plan. Yes, I would like to remind my friends in the NDP that the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec is a public body with no plans to make money off taxpayers, as the federal government's dental care program would do. If the proposed dental cheques policy is so bad, it is because the government still stubbornly refuses to consult Quebec and the provinces when designing its programs. What is more, because of Quebec's progressive labour code, the rate of unionization and group insurance is higher in Quebec than anywhere else in North America, making workers ineligible for the federal programs. It is always Quebec that pays for the federal government's slowness, because it created a good social safety net for itself long before the federal government thought of doing it. Why can the federal government not help itself from intruding where it does not belong when it cannot even take care of its own responsibilities properly? I have a theory. I think it wants to kill the concept of fiscal imbalance. It is simple: Instead of fixing it, the government will make it disappear. Think about it. Instead of sending health transfers to the provinces or giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation, it creates a unitary government where there is no longer a division of powers. By gradually eroding the powers of the provinces, it will do away with the concept of the fiscal imbalance, where the needs are in the provinces but the money is in Ottawa. The fiscal imbalance is not fixed, but it no longer exists. However, if the federal government wants to convince the public that it is capable of becoming a unitary state with sweeping powers, perhaps it should start by showing that it is capable of at least looking after its own areas of jurisdiction, the things that are truly its responsibility. Do I need to mention again, as I have done on many occasions in the House, ArriveCAN or the billions of dollars that, for years, have been going to companies that deliver no services except those they subcontract out with very high commissions? Once again, we learn something new every week. Instead of cleaning up its own agencies, the federal government is promoting employees who openly broke the code of conduct. Employees who went out for drinks and dinner with GC Strategies got promoted. That is outrageous. The federal government is not looking after its own areas of jurisdiction, yet it is meddling even more in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The crux of this debate is really the federal government's role. If our colleagues want a unitary state where all decisions are made in Ottawa, they should just come out and say it. Some countries do it that way. It is a vision that can be defended. However, it would mean reopening the Constitution, which scares them. I am convinced that Quebeckers will never agree to lose their autonomy and their powers. My colleagues from the other parties say they are federalists. They should be federalists, then. They should accept that they do not have all the power, and they should trust Quebec and the provinces to take care of their own jurisdictions. Once we recognize the fiscal imbalance issue, which will remain as long as Canada is governed by the current Constitution, on the one hand, and by the need to take action to help our people, on the other, the House will have to ask itself some real questions. When the federal system was set up, the major needs were things that fell under federal jurisdiction: fighting in the British Empire's wars to take over the Boer diamond mines, building armoured ships for that empire and destroying indigenous nations through famines, reservations and residential schools. Those were the federal government's priorities back when the federal regime was created. It had real needs and it dipped into the provinces' finances. However, in 2024, the real needs are in Quebec and the provinces. The solutions to the real problems are also in the hands of the Quebec and provincial governments. If the House really wants to help people with housing or their children's dental care, it should stop and think. Instead of thinking up nationwide projects that are bound to be ill adapted, the federal government should abandon its ambitions of controlling everything. It should eliminate the fiscal imbalance. It should give Quebec and the provinces the means to take care of their people. If not, it should be sincere—something that is often lacking in the House—and reopen the Constitution once and for all. The Government of Canada should just become a unitary government and put it to the people to see how they respond, unless it is too afraid that, this time, Quebeckers will tell it once and for all that they are really leaving.

1608 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/23/24 1:46:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. We work together on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Her diligent work on public accounts is really important, and it shows how attentive she is to detail. Since she used to work as a financial consultant, I know that she fully understands how important funding for any project is. That is where the federal government is a real partner with the provinces, especially Quebec. One example that comes to mind is the lack of connectivity in my region. That was a big problem about 10 years ago. I was one of the people who argued that it needed to be dealt with by the provinces. It was Quebec that dealt with Hydro-Québec for telecommunications poles, but the federal government provided more than $1 billion. Does my colleague think it is a good idea to work together like that?

154 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/23/24 1:47:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This is a good example of what the Constitution says. There was no Internet when the Constitution was created, when the federal system was created. All new powers belong to the federal government, and for once, the government acted with respect for jurisdictions. For once, the federal government handed over the money to Quebec, and it was a victory for the Bloc Québécois. As a result, Quebec became the province with the best connectivity in Canada. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, which pressured the federal government into accepting its responsibilities and sending money to Quebec so that it could do what needed to be done, everything was resolved.

125 words