44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 17, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/17/24 12:20:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there will be no suspense here. This is another closure motion which the New Democratic Party will support. I have lost count of the number of gag orders limiting time on questions as fundamental as the budget.
I understand the NDP even less, who continue to insist on limiting parliamentarians' right to speak to the budget. Yes, the budget allows gains to be made. However, when we hear the Liberals speak on the topics of social housing, the new disability benefit, the environment and climate change, they get all worked up.
They are also creating badly written social programs, like dental care, which has been assigned to a private insurance company, rather than recognizing Quebec's expertise and jurisdiction in this area and transferring the money with full compensation. This would have allowed us to enhance our own program.
I am becoming uncomfortable with the fact that parliamentarians, in a democracy, should face repeated closures on substantive issues. It is certain that my political party and I will again vote against this attempt to limit the time to study a budget that does not meet Quebeckers' needs.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:24:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have seen fierce opposition from Bloc Québécois members to all the programs Quebeckers want. To date, 700,000 Quebeckers, more than anywhere else in the country, have shown their full support for the NDP's dental care program by signing up for it. We have also seen a huge coalition form in support of pharmacare. According to this coalition, nearly 2 million Quebeckers are calling for the implementation of pharmacare.
The Bloc Québécois has opposed all these measures and now opposes this budget, which would allow affordable homes to be built and provide lunches to schoolchildren. Why does my colleague think Bloc Québécois members so ferociously oppose all the measures Quebeckers want, and fail to listen to people in their riding who want dental care, pharmacare, affordable housing and, of course, schoolchildren to actually have the opportunity to eat during the day?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 12:25:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy that my colleague has asked me this because I did not have time in responding to the last question to answer it, but I agree completely with what my hon. colleague has just said. There are a number of priorities in the budget that Quebec would love to see implemented. My colleague has outlined a number of them that I think Quebeckers want. In addition to that, I look at some of the supports that we have provided for Quebec. Just last summer, we provided $1.8 billion in a housing agreement. In budget 2024, we provided $3.4 billion to support young researchers in Canada and Quebec, $1.28 billion to fight homelessness, and $1.5 billion to protect and expand affordable housing.
There are lots of things here, but let me add this as a final point: Yes, Quebec does have some measures that are in place, so let us build on what we have. This does not have to be adversarial or pit one against the other. If we have something that is working, let us continue to work collaboratively, learn from what works and build on what works, but make the investments, not cuts. We do not want cuts.
There are members from the official opposition who are writing me, for example, on CFDCs, which are community future development corporations. They want to see more money into CFDCs. I want to know what they are going to do. Are they going to take that position publicly? Are they going to say that publicly? What dollars are they going to cut because they have this new dollar-for-dollar approach? What is going to be cut? That is what I would ask the official opposition.
293 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 1:46:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am from Alberta, and like a Quebecker, I have very similar thoughts about how much control Ottawa should have on our daily lives.
I do believe, as my colleague is from Quebec, that he was trying to say thanks for the millions of dollars that his province receives in equalization and transfers. My province does not receive any of that.
However, we do not need to belabour those particular issues. If we actually cut the size of the federal government and allow our provincial governments to do the jobs that they are constitutionally empowered to do, get out of the way and just focus on economic growth and opportunity, reduce the red tape and the gatekeepers, as the leader of my party says, Canadians, including Quebeckers, will be better off.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 2:08:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis is untenable in Quebec. The housing shortage is being felt by people throughout Quebec. Homelessness is spreading and is more visible than ever before.
While Quebeckers suffer, the Bloc Québécois voted with the Liberals against the bill introduced by the Conservative Party aimed at building housing units. It also voted for $500 billion in centralizing and inflationary budgetary appropriations.
Quebeckers' cries for help can be heard across Quebec. Homelessness is everywhere in Rouyn-Noranda, and community service agencies in Rimouski are barely able to serve their growing client base. While Quebec needs help now more than ever, the Bloc Québécois is refusing to listen to their pleas.
Here on this side of the House, we hear them loud and clear. The common-sense Conservatives will continue to introduce measures to improve the quality of life of all Canadians, even if we are the only ones in the House to do so.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 2:37:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, does everyone know what the minister did? He desperately tried to hide the fact that Quebeckers are paying dearly for the federal carbon tax, which is supported by the Bloc Québécois. Despite his claims that Quebeckers do not pay the carbon tax, his own figures, which he would not reveal until the Conservatives forced him to, tell a different story. The report that he was so anxious to conceal shows that the economic cost of the carbon tax for Quebeckers is $5 billion.
Are these not five billion reasons for the minister to resign?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 2:52:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois voted for $500 billion in budget appropriations, which contributed to the current housing crisis. The Bloc also voted with the Liberals against the bill introduced by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, who was trying to make housing more affordable.
Numerous newspaper articles are now reporting that homelessness is going up sharply in ridings represented by the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers are suffering and have lost confidence in this government and its Bloc buddies.
Will the government do the right thing and call an election today?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 2:53:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Liberal government, Quebeckers are going through housing hell. The lack of affordable housing throughout Quebec is forcing many women to remain in abusive situations.
The Bloc Québécois has made the housing crisis worse by voting for $500 billion in spending. On top of that, it voted with the Liberals against the Conservative leader's bill, which was aimed specifically at speeding up housing construction.
Can this Prime Minister, supported by the Bloc Québécois, stop forcing Quebeckers to live in misery by voting against measures designed to make their lives better?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 2:55:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with moving day two weeks away, Quebeckers are worried. Many of them are looking for a new place to live. In Saguenay, skyrocketing rent costs have families believing they will end up living on the streets.
Despite it all, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals voted against our common-sense bill to build housing. The Bloc would rather support the government and vote for the $500 billion in budget allocations that helped fuel the housing crisis in the first place. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly, especially in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.
When will the Liberals and their Bloc Québécois supporters listen to us?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 2:56:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are joining forces and speaking out against $145 million in cuts to workforce training in Quebec.
The Quebec government and labour market partners have asked Ottawa to back down in a letter signed by the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, youth chambers of commerce, as well as manufacturers and exporters. They are all speaking with one voice.
The Minister of Labour is scheduled to meet with his counterpart today. Will he announce that he is cancelling these cuts?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 6:45:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I see my colleague, whom I very much like, get so heated. I am disappointed because I was on a mission with him and I tried to teach him a little more French. It did not work that evening, but he always has a French word to say.
He talks about building a country. It is clear that we do not feel included in that country, because Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois's demands are ignored.
I will list a few of our demands: Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation; increased old age pensions for people aged 65 and over; an end to subsidies for all fossil fuels and support for a clean energy transition; and the transfer of housing money to Quebec.
How does he respond to this? We are not part of the story. We will never be part of the Liberals' federalist story. There is nothing there for us.
Does my colleague agree that the Bloc Québécois's demands remain unanswered?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:32:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that the most recent budget is truly an attack on Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions. It is obvious that the Liberals were influenced by the New Democrats, who are so centralist that they would like to get rid of the provinces entirely.
We heard the Leader of the Opposition say many times that he would respect Quebec's and the provinces' areas of jurisdiction, and we know that Quebeckers send $80 billion in taxes to the federal government.
Last weekend, I heard the Leader of the Opposition speak during a debate in Quebec City on whether there should be a tramway, a third link or both. The leader of the official opposition said that Quebec should opt for a highway if it wanted money—our money, by the way. He said that if Quebec chose the tramway, it would not get a cent.
That means that he is blackmailing us with our own money. Is that not a form of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction? It is up to Quebec to decide whether it wants a tramway or not. When he says that, he is interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions. Do you not agree?
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 7:33:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the member referenced how many tax dollars the Province of Quebec has paid into the federal coffers, but that his party turned around and voted for the government spending all of Quebeckers' hard-earned money on other things.
We can agree on one thing, which is that the federal government needs to respect provincial jurisdiction. However, the member's party continues to prop up the government. The member and his party had a chance to send a statement and say that they do not agree with the way the government is spending their money, but they voted with the government instead of against it.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 9:12:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of a former parliamentarian just a few days ago. Gilles Perron, who was the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for 11 years, passed away after a brief battle with cancer. He will be remembered as a fighter, someone who was close to his constituents and dedicated to his community. He will also be remembered for his extraordinary commitment to veterans. Any progress made on post-traumatic stress disorder is thanks to him. Dearest Gilles, thank you and rest in peace.
Despite this sad news, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill to implement certain provisions of budget 2024, Bill C-69. I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against this bill. Why? It is because too many aspects of the bill go against our values, the needs of Quebec society and what we have been protecting from the very beginning, that is, Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. They are also other provinces' areas of jurisdiction, provinces that might be less combative than Quebec, but, basically, these are our jurisdictions. As I see it, all of this is having a negative impact on the environmental balance of Quebec and Canada.
We have before us a mammoth omnibus bill. We are talking about 650 pages. It contains 67 different measures, 23 tax measures and 44 non-tax measures. Objectively speaking, this bill has some positive aspects, but clearly it has too many irritants for the Bloc Québécois to agree to support it. I will focus my speech on just two points. Given that we are talking about a 650-page bill, we obviously have to limit ourselves. Two things in this bill are very important to me, and Quebeckers are concerned about them too. I am talking about oil and the environment. Oil gets a lot of ink. Far be it from me to make extremist or—how shall I put this—demagogic comments, because people still need oil.
We still need oil, unfortunately, but if we were able to advocate for a well-thought-out, calculated phase-out of oil and gas extraction, that would help us move on to something else and look to the future in a better light. However, our government and the Conservatives are obviously not taking that direction. The implementation of budget 2024 is clear proof of that.
Who here believes that there is a single oil company in Canada that needs subsidies to operate? No one, obviously. I think that even the Conservatives would agree with me. Ottawa is subsidizing oil companies to the tune of a whopping $30.3 billion in tax credits. Subsidizing companies that have record revenues year after year does not add up and is even rather obscene.
The massive subsidies the federal government is giving oil companies in the form of tax credits will total $83 billion by 2035. Six tax credits were introduced by the Liberals in the last two budgets. What is more, this $83 billion is being given to companies whose shareholders are 70% foreigners, people from outside Canada. This creates a significant flight of capital out of Quebec and Canada. It is important to mention it.
As for the profits generated by these same oil companies, we are talking about $38 billion from 2020 to 2022. Yes, we, the taxpayers, are paying oil companies to continue polluting when they are making record profits. That is an insult to our intelligence and, of course, to our environment.
Similarly, the government has implemented a clean technology investment tax credit of $17.8 billion. That is also a rather striking and appalling example. Under the guise of promoting clean energy, this tax credit actually seeks to encourage oil companies to use nuclear reactors, which would, of course, enable them to extract more bitumen and make more gas available for export at taxpayers' expense.
This bill contains another tax credit, the $12.5-billion carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. The problem is that this money once again enables oil companies to extract more oil. What is more, let us not forget that carbon capture is still in its infancy, in a completely experimental phase. The goal is to recover some of the carbon dioxide emitted and then store it underground, usually in old, empty oil wells.
Interestingly, former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, did an interview with a news site called 24 heures on December 5, 2023. She had this to say about the investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage:
It should never have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that....We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating.
I guess the Liberals need to leave their party in order to speak freely and intelligently.
I will now move on to my second point. People have probably been outside today and are likely aware of the massive temperature increase forecast for this week. We are in for a second heat wave, and it is not even officially summer yet. The temperature with humidex will be 45°C. Some 135 million people will be affected by this extreme temperature. There are also the 19 pilgrims who died today in Saudi Arabia. Let us also think of the teachers and students who are finishing their year and their exams in extreme heat. Above all, I am thinking of seniors whose health is fragile and who will be affected by these extreme temperatures. There are also the farmers who are struggling to make sure they can harvest their crops, which provide us with healthy food.
There is absolutely nothing in this budget to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Do we still need to convince the Liberals that it is nearly too late to take action? It is unacceptable to ignore this issue and not prioritize measures to ensure the quality of life for future generations. The Bloc Québécois cannot just sit back and wait for a plan that will not be presented until next fall.
In closing, I would add that the government did not pick up on any of the priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois before the economic statement. These are priorities that would respond to the real and urgent needs of Quebec and would serve Canadians as well. I will simply conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois will continue to stand up for the interests of Quebec and its citizens against unfair and harmful measures like the ones in Bill C‑69.
1194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 11:46:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are people who go to work in the United States, who drive trucks to the United States and who are paid by the Americans. What is the problem?
We are the Bloc Québécois. We represent Quebeckers, who contribute $80 billion in taxes. I work for them. I work to ensure that this money is spent wisely and that the will of Quebeckers is respected when it comes to where the money goes. That is why we are here.
We work on bills that govern Quebeckers' lives. That is why we are here. In our minds we are in foreign country, but, unfortunately, that foreign country is going to take money out of our pockets. We are here to stand up for our people and ensure that their money is spent wisely.
I do not think that I am as adored in my riding as you are in yours, Madam Speaker, but I am sure that the people in my riding are happy with the work I am doing.
During the next election, my colleagues are welcome to come to my riding to see how proud people are of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing. They say that, yes—
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/17/24 11:48:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a foreign country, according to my colleague from La Prairie. I love listening to him, but there are 700,000 Quebeckers who have benefited from dental care in this foreign country. This dental care was put in place thanks to the NDP. In the first five weeks alone, 700,000 Quebeckers have already taken advantage of this new program, which will really improve their health.
It is obvious that Quebeckers disagree with my colleague, but does he agree with the NDP amendment, which will completely fix this bill?
The Conservatives and the Bloc did not introduce any amendments. The NDP did. Does the member support the NDP amendment?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
