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 10:48:31 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 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 1:49:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.
Maybe if I said the words “tax” and “carbon”, they would finally have a reason to stand up and speak, but today we are talking about something else that should be top of mind for them, and that is Quebec.
I think that party believes it can take power by completely ignoring the needs of Quebeckers. That is what it is doing today; it is ignoring what we want.
As my colleague said, the other reason is internal division. The old Conservatives respect jurisdictions, but the new ones, the neo-Conservatives, do not really understand the concept of separate jurisdictions. They want a hand in everything under the sun because they are driven by populism and lowest-common-denominator politics.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 2:57:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating federal interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. One striking example concerns research chairs. The federal government is meddling in higher education and dictating which fields of study our universities must prioritize if they want to receive their share of funding.
Worse still, with its equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, criteria, Ottawa is deciding not only what people will study, but also who will teach it. Ottawa is literally taking over our universities.
Why does the government not let universities decide who to hire, based on their qualifications and nothing else?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:41:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today's motion reads as follows:
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.
I do not know what my colleagues think of this, but it feels like déjà vu to me.
Let us start at the beginning The Constitution Act, 1867, divides up federal and provincial jurisdiction in sections 91 and 92. It is just a list, kind of a shopping list. However, the federal government's history of attempting to legislate in areas under provincial jurisdiction is impressive. How much money has been wasted on needless, fruitless and even harmful legal wrangling and pseudo-negotiations?
Our courts have had many opportunities to remind us of the terms of the Constitution in which the federal government constantly drapes itself but systemically disrespects. I have a suggestion to make to members of the government, which is to reread sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They are only two pages long, and they are in both French and English.
Secondly, on the subject of authority, a reference relating to securities law was handed down in 2011 by the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal government should go back and read the explanations given by the judges in this decision as to how the division of powers works. I will mention just three.
Paragraph 119 says, “Inherently sovereign, the provinces will always retain the ability to resile from an interprovincial scheme”. Paragraph 119 also states, “it is in the nature of a federation that different provinces adopt their own unique approaches consistent with their unique priorities when addressing social or economic issues.”
The third example is found in paragraph 71:
The Canadian federation rests on the organizing principle that the orders of government are coordinate and not subordinate one to the other. As a consequence, a federal head of power cannot be given a scope that would eviscerate a provincial legislative competence. This is one of the principles that underlies the Constitution...
The Supreme Court said that. It was not the first time.
In 1919, the Supreme Court's decision in In Re The Initiative and Referendum Act stated that the purpose of the Constitution Act, 1867, was:
not to weld the Provinces into one, nor to subordinate Provincial Governments to a central authority, but to establish a Central Government in which these Provinces should be represented, entrusted with exclusive authority only in affairs in which they had a common interest. Subject to this each Province was to retain its independence and autonomy....
The Constitution is clear. The Supreme Court has said this many times. I just quoted from two decisions, but the current federal government does not seem to understand these simple principles, which a first-year law student would easily understand.
We are now seeing multiple intrusions and attempted intrusions. Look at pharmacare. Quebec's system has room for improvement, but it does exist. The federal government should transfer the money instead of creating a new costly and inefficient structure.
As in the case of pharmacare, Quebec already has a public dental insurance system, managed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. We agree that it could be improved, but the federal government is determined to create its own parallel system. If the money were transferred to the provinces with no strings attached, these plans could be upgraded. Instead, the government is going to spend money to create conflicting and sometimes overlapping provisions.
The federal renters' bill of rights is a new scheme devised this spring. Announced in late March, this bill of rights would require landlords to disclose rent histories. It would also crack down on renovictions and establish a standard, national lease template, among other things. However, jurisdiction over property and civil rights, as set out in subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is assigned exclusively to Quebec and the provinces. Yesterday, in fact, Quebec's minister of municipal affairs and housing introduced Bill 65 in the National Assembly. The bill aims to regulate evictions by imposing a three-year moratorium. Quebec is doing what it must. The minister said this morning on the Radio-Canada program Tout un matin that the federal government should simply look after its own responsibilities, like the out-of-control temporary immigration that is driving up the demand for housing.
Another type of intrusion is the promise to challenge Quebec's state secularism law. On June 16, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 21, which seeks to ensure that all Quebeckers have the freedom to practise and display their religious convictions without the state expressing any preference whatsoever. That is what is known as secularism. The Quebec state is secular both in spirit and in letter. It must be secular in both word and deed, demonstrating its secularism through its representatives. How is this the federal government's business? Why is the current federal government not only promising to challenge this legislation before the Supreme Court, but also funding the various legal challenges it is facing? This is clearly interference in provincial jurisdictions, and it explains, in part, the motion before us today.
Beyond respect for jurisdictions, what about respect for the motions of the House?
On June 16, it will be three years since the House of Commons adopted the following motion, and I quote:
That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.
Since then, the federal Minister of Justice has still not entered in his administrative codification Quebec's changes to section 90, regarding language and nation, and to section 128, regarding the oath to the King. I would point out that this codification is mainly used by judges, lawyers and other court officials. The Government of Quebec has updated its codification, which incorporates the changes made by Quebec and Saskatchewan. What is the federal government waiting for?
Respect for jurisdictions also involves respect for motions that call upon the government to acknowledge the actions taken by various governments in their areas of jurisdiction. I would like someone to explain the reason for this oversight. For now, only Quebec has an up-to-date codification of the Constitution Act.
At the beginning of April, the Prime Minister said that people do not really care which level of government is responsible for what. A Leger poll released on April 19 tells us that 80% of Quebeckers believe that governments must respect their respective areas of jurisdiction and that 74% of them believe that Ottawa must get the agreement of the provinces before it intervenes in their areas of jurisdiction. Quebeckers, like Canadians across the country, certainly want affordable rent and groceries, but I do not recall anyone talking about chaos.
My time is up. I would still have much to say. Perhaps I will continue in my response to questions, if there are any.
1273 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:52:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would say that in Rivière-du-Nord, as in the rest of Quebec and probably across Canada, everyone is happy to have social measures that help people. However, no one is happy when that is done in such circumstances, where there is no respect for anyone in this House.
When we stand up and ask the government to respect us, we are told that we like picking fights. That is all this government is capable of doing in response to our requests to respect jurisdictions.
Do we agree? Are we happy with this dental plan? No. We want the money to be transferred to Quebec, which already has a dental plan. We do not want measures that overlap or contradict each other. One captain per boat is enough.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable asks me how I am able to live with a so-called lie. Facts have never been the Conservatives' strong suit, so that is pretty funny.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Jean-Denis Garon: Mr. Speaker, you can call the member to order. I know he has discipline issues. Sometimes those issues can be corrected, and there is no age limit.
The Conservatives say that they voted against Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation because they first needed to see that the government was infringing on Quebec's jurisdictions, meddling in municipal affairs, violating Quebec laws and imposing conditions directly on municipalities. He was the mayor of a city. I want to welcome him to the federal scene. If he likes trampling all over the jurisdictions of municipalities and the Quebec government, he will be fine here. He will like it here.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:57:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the problem goes deeper than that. When a party comes to power in Ottawa, it has few responsibilities while running a modern state but very deep pockets. Generally speaking, Conservative governments start abusing Ottawa's spending power when they take office. In this case, the Conservatives jumped the gun a bit by saying that they would simply be infringing on the jurisdictions of cities, such as Quebec City. A condition is a condition, whether it comes with a penalty or a reward.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:55:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is my last question: Can the minister reaffirm to the House how important it is to protect safety in our communities, how it is important to fight crime, and how it is important that other provincial jurisdictions also have a responsibility, especially in regard to bail?
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
