- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34
- Government Page
- Jun/13/24 7:14:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague speak.
The Conservatives pride themselves on being the party of common sense. Something in the supplementary estimates does not make sense. I am referring to a $3‑million increase for something that had already been allocated $22 million. Ottawa is investing an additional $3 million in little medals to be awarded in connection with the coronation of King Charles III following the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
More than 70% of Quebeckers oppose the monarchy. It is an archaic symbol and an undemocratic institution. I would like my colleague to tell me whether her common-sense party is for or against the monarchy.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 8:04:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it will take me more than 40 seconds to explain how discrimination against francophones has been going on for as long as Canada has existed. We were promised reconciliation and substantive equality. We were promised that institutional bilingualism would be the salvation of francophones.
The Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party are federalist parties that are stacked with and controlled by the anglophone majority. Sometimes they feel generous and toss Quebeckers and francophones a bone now and then. However, when the time comes for concrete action to establish substantive equality between the two official languages, then the bones stop coming and all attempts at appeasement end.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 5:04:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kingston and the Islands on his speech. I think that we just witnessed something historic. I have never heard my colleague say the word “Quebec” so many times before.
This is hypocritical. My colleague is saying that the government is following Quebec's example because it is a leader in the area of child care, but when it comes time to negotiate other programs that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, Quebec is suddenly no longer a leader. I am thinking, for example, of the dental insurance and pharmacare programs that the member just bragged about implementing. The government is telling Quebec what to do and imposing conditions on us. It wants Quebec to grovel for the money. However, the reality is that the more freedom Quebec has, the better it does. Quebec did not wait for the federal government to implement its child care system.
I would like my colleague to answer a simple question. What can a Canadian do that a Quebecker cannot?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 4:38:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound on his speech.
Quebec is a distinct society by virtue of not only its identity, but also its choices. It was over 25 years ago now that Quebec chose to set up early childhood centres. This child care system already exists in Quebec. I really feel that we are wasting Quebeckers' time when we have to debate a bill to bring in a system that has already existed in Quebec for more than 25 years.
This morning, we also heard about a new pharmacare program, something that has existed in Quebec for nearly 50 years now.
I would like my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound to tell me loud and clear if he respects Quebec's choices and if, for these types of programs, Quebec can have a right to opt out with full financial compensation, no strings attached.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 5:32:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend the initiative of my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville seeking to highlight the importance and richness of the Polish community's contribution to the Quebec nation. It is not every day that we have the opportunity to shine a light on this culture.
I would like to make it clear from the outset that I will be voting in favour of the motion. The Bloc Québécois is delighted to join the mover of the motion in acknowledging the exceptional contribution that Quebeckers of Polish origin have made to our society and culture. I would like to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to Quebeckers of Polish origin living in my riding and in the Lower St. Lawrence region. Some 79,000 Quebeckers identify themselves as being of Polish origin. Of all these people, 23,550 are first-generation immigrants and more than 55,000 are from subsequent generations.
Polish people's contribution over the course of their long and tumultuous history is well established. In science, the first modern thinker to theorize the heliocentric model, in which the Earth revolves around the Sun, not vice versa, was none other than Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer. Marie Curie was a Polish woman held up time and time again the world over as a symbol representative of women's significant contribution to science and dedication to a scientific career.
I do not have much time left, so I just want to add a few more. What would music be without Frédéric Chopin? What would Romantic painting of the 19th century be without Piotr Michalowski? What would 20th century poetry be without Krzysztof Baczynski? What would television series as a powerful art form be without Krzysztof Kieslowski's paradigmatic Dekalog?
Poland has a northern climate. Ice hockey is almost as popular there as it is in Montreal, the city where it was invented. No doubt that is why Quebec has always been a welcoming place for the Polish community. Canada's first Polish immigrant, Dominik Barcz, was a fur trader from Gdansk. In 1752, he settled in New France, specifically in Montreal, before the British conquest. He was later joined by his compatriot Charles Blaskowitz in 1757.
More recently, at the end of the Second World War, Quebec took in Poles scarred and devastated by the horrors they had seen and experienced. Seeking refuge and fleeing the communist regime, they made themselves a new home in our corner of the world. As the years turned into centuries, their culture blended and integrated with ours. Quebec and its Polish community therefore have strong institutions.
One example is the work of Wanda Stachiewicz, who founded the Polish Institute of Arts and Science in Canada in 1943. She arrived in Montreal on a Polish ship from London on July 13, 1940. She was a former member of the Polish resistance against the German invaders, a role she played while protecting her three children. She was instrumental in founding the Association of Polish Women War Refugees, which later became the Society of Poles in Exile.
Another example is the Institut Canadien-Polonais du Bien-Être. It is a health institute whose first centre was inaugurated by René Lévesque in 1966 when he was the health minister. A new centre was opened in 1984 by Dr. Camille Laurin, the father of the Quebec Charter of the French Language, when he was health minister. The institute's ethnolinguistic character, autonomy and special mission for Quebeckers of Polish origin were recognized by the National Assembly of Quebec in May 2004.
The fate and life story of Polish immigrants have also influenced Quebec culture and literature. In her famous novel Ces enfants d'ailleurs, the great Quebec author, Arlette Cousture, tells the story of Elisabeth, Jan and Jerzy, with their parents Tomasz Pawulski, a history teacher, and Zofia Pawulska, a musician, who fled the war in Europe that was so sad that “even the birds stopped singing”. They travelled from Krakow, Poland, in 1939, to here “near a great river, in the colourful and inviting city of Montreal”.
It is important to note that Poland has had observer status at the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie since 1985. This interest in our language comes from the close ties between that country and France, both historically, because they have been great allies throughout history, and economically and culturally.
As a result, Poland has a special relationship with Quebec when it comes to language and culture. With nearly a million people who speak our beautiful French language, Poland is promoting the importance of French in the cultural, labour and tourism sectors.
We are therefore pleased to help designate May 3 as Polish constitution day and the month of May as Polish heritage month. Every year, we will celebrate the May 3 national holiday that commemorates the adoption of the Polish constitution on May 3, 1791.
It was on that day that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth adopted one of Europe's first modern constitutions. Directly inspired by the French Revolution, it introduced free elections. The constitution was shaped by enlightenment and is based on reason, freedom and the rule of law.
By way of comparison, at that same time, in 1792, our ancestors were having their first experience with parliamentary life, with the first election and the meeting of the Parliament of Quebec in what was then known as Lower Canada. Since then, the French Canadian people, later the people of Quebec, have also been in pursuit of their political freedom.
At the time, this constitution was a symbol of hope for the restoration of the country's sovereignty. May 3 has always remained a source of inspiration for the people of Poland in their quest for independence.
It is worth remembering that, as a state, Poland has not had a quiet, peaceful existence. Throughout their long history, Polish men and women have shown unfailing strength and resilience. They fought for their independence for a long time.
Partitioned, occupied, invaded for centuries, then destroyed and ravaged by totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Poland has been at the heart of conflicts due to its geographical location in Europe. In 1795, it was carved up and annexed by its Austrian, Prussian and Russian neighbours. It was against this backdrop that many of the first Polish migrants arrived in Quebec.
Despite a brief liberation between 1807 and 1815 during Napoleon's conquests, known as the Duchy of Warsaw, when Napoleon fell, the country was annexed once again. It was not until 1918 and the end of the First World War that Poland was again on the world map. However, that was short lived. As we all know, the Poles were the first victims of the Second World War.
When Nazi Germany invaded the country, the inhabitants experienced heavy losses despite their heroism and tenacity. For example, 50 Polish mail carriers defended the post office in the Free City of Danzig against 200 SS and SA troops for hours. The Polish cavalry charged German tanks at Krojanty on horseback. Despite the occupation of their country, Poles fought and resisted. The 1944 Warsaw Uprising is a perfect illustration of that resilience.
By the end of the war in 1945, Poland had experienced very heavy losses. The Nazis had exterminated nearly 90% of the country's Jewish population. Cities like Warsaw were almost entirely destroyed. Resistance was fiercely repressed. Seventeen percent of the pre-war population had been killed. These events led to a wave of pre- and post-war immigration. Refugees fleeing conflicts and anti-Semitism found safe haven in Quebec.
The country was then occupied by the Stalin regime, which once again annexed a portion of its original territory and again forced Poland to live as a vassal state under the Communist regime. It was not until 1989 that the regime withdrew, allowing the emergence of the Republic of Poland as we know it today, based on a semi-presidential system like the one in France.
Throughout all those years of occupation under the yoke of another country, the Constitution became an important symbol in the march toward regaining national sovereignty. For Poles, this charter fanned the hope that one day their vanished state would return.
In closing, I would remind members that we, as Quebeckers, are working hard to achieve our own quest for national independence. Our two nations are similar in so many way: we both lost our independence following a colonial war of conquest, and our two peoples have always resisted the foreign invader.
Every May 3, we celebrate the resilience and commitment of our compatriots of Polish heritage and their fight for independence and sovereignty.
1477 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague this. Why does he not respect the Constitution? Why does he not respect provincial autonomy? Why does he want the federal government to dictate the rules of the game when Quebeckers never asked it to?
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, has good intentions. It seeks to improve controls and give the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry more authority over foreign investments in Canada. The Bloc Québécois fully supports this commitment to better protecting the economy of Quebec and Canada from foreign interests that may be harmful to us.
The new review process is essentially the same as the one used in the United States. Adopting it increases the chances that the U.S. will continue to see us as a reliable partner. That is a condition for being a preferred supplier that is well integrated into their supply chains. At a time when protectionism is on the rise among our neighbours to the south, a trend that could seriously disrupt our economy, that is an important asset, and the Bloc Québécois applauds it.
Bill C‑34 is in addition to the new critical minerals guidelines that the government adopted in October 2022, and that apply to 31 minerals that are critical for the long-term economic prosperity of Canada and its allies. Bill C‑34 and Canada's new critical minerals strategy should help stop Chinese companies, among others, from taking over our resources.
All these developments are positive, but they are only half-measures. That is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in controlling foreign investments in general. The bill under consideration is limited to investments affecting national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, so focusing on it is justified. However, it represents only a small fraction of all foreign investments made in Canada. It is clear that the safety net provided for in the new system created by these proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act is inadequate.
Here are some figures. Of the 1,255 investment projects filed last year, under the new rules being proposed in Bill C‑34, only 24 would be subject to review. Clearly, this is like a grain of sand on a beach. This bill would affect only 2% of all investment projects filed last year. The other 1,221 projects from last year would remain subject to the new rules. Those rules provide for a review to determine whether a project will truly provide a net economic benefit to Canada.
There are six criteria then used to assess whether a transaction is beneficial. That said, I would draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that a review is only triggered when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères explained.
That is where the problem lies. Over the years, the threshold at which the government must assess whether an investment is economically beneficial has been significantly increased. It has more than tripled in the last 10 years. At the same time, the number of investment projects is increasing every year, and that must be taken into consideration.
The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review. Last year, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. That is less than 1%.
The member for Winnipeg North says that the law is being amended, so it must be good. The Liberals have created a bill that does not affect even 1% of the projects. That is not very ambitious. It reminds me of yesterday's smoke show on health transfers.
The review rate was 10% as recently as about 10 years ago, in 2009. In reality, this measure has become essentially ineffective over time. It might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. The situation is such that foreign investments are rubber-stamped without analysis, save for exceptional cases. Understandably, less than 1% certainly qualifies as exceptional.
Everyone knows how much I love history, how passionate I am about it, and I believe that building our future depends on having a good understanding of the past so we can learn from our successes and avoid repeating mistakes. I would like to share some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.
Since the Quiet Revolution, the Government of Quebec has established some important economic and financial levers. These tools enable it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism designed to give Quebeckers more control over their economy. That does not mean Quebec is not open to foreign investment. We are open to it because it can drive growth and development. However, we believe the priority is supporting our own businesses to help them grow so we can protect the significant decision-making power of our own corporate headquarters.
In 1988, former Parti Québécois premier Bernard Landry lobbied for the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, which was signed with the U.S. and Mexico in the early 1990s. Quebec's strategy worked. Quebec's decision to invest in its businesses paid off, and many flagship companies headquartered on Quebec soil grew.
As the figures show, the presence of head offices is important. There are currently close to 578 head offices in Quebec. This represents approximately 50,000 jobs that pay twice as much as the Quebec average. On top of that, head offices provide nearly 20,000 other jobs for specialized suppliers such as accounting, legal, financial and computer firms, and so on. Structurally, companies headquartered in Quebec also tend to favour procurement from local suppliers, which creates a positive economic circle. Finally, companies tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their head office is located.
As the Bloc Québécois science and innovation critic, I have to emphasize how important this characteristic is, since Canada ranks last in the G7 when it comes to corporate investments in research and development. This statistic can probably be traced to the fact that the Canadian economy has always been recognized as a subsidiary economy. One might think of the automotive sector, with Ford Canada and GM Canada, or the oil sector, with the Shell Canadas and the Imperial Oils of the world.
There is no shortage of examples of the harmful effects that ill-advised foreign investments can have on our economy and even our prosperity. Here are just a few.
First, there is the loss of decision-making powers and head offices, which condemns us to being a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Second, there is the weakening of Montreal's financial sector as a global finance hub. Third, there is the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers and supply chains that are more fragile than ever. We saw that during difficult times, such as the COVID‑19 pandemic. Fourth, there is the possible land grab by rich foreigners who do not care about our social and economic priorities. That is a concrete example. Fifth, there is the loss of control over our natural resources, which are our country's greatest asset.
By focusing exclusively on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. I want to reiterate that we invite the government to amend its bill to make it much more bold and ambitious and to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act and not just the part on national security.
As always, the Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such it is recommending three types of amendments. The first is to lower the review threshold to prevent most foreign investments from being approved without review. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents.
I hope the government will listen to our practical proposals and modernize this bill.
1361 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we understand the member for Winnipeg North's point. Health transfers are not a gift that we are asking Ottawa for. We want our fair share of our money. This money comes from Quebeckers and the provinces. The federal government does not invent this money—
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the comments from the member for Winnipeg North are giving me a feeling of déjà vu.
Giving Quebeckers the health care system they expect requires adequate financial support, but this government is not offering that. The Prime Minister made a commitment in 2020 to address the situation after the pandemic and to sit down with Quebec and the provinces to negotiate health transfers. This commitment is not new; it is nearly two years old. However, the Prime Minister did not even bother to show up when the federal Minister of Health called a meeting with all the first ministers of Canada and Quebec.
It is just not a priority for the federal government right now. The only thing Ottawa wants to do is continue trampling on provincial jurisdictions. I would like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me what real expertise the federal government has in health care when—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am excited to speak to Bill C-32 today, the bill to implement the economic statement introduced by the Liberal government.
The bill contains 25 tax measures and about 10 other non-tax measures. This may seem like a lot, but a closer look at these measures reveals that they are twofold: minor legislative amendments, and measures that were announced in the spring 2022 budget that were not included in the first budget implementation bill passed last June. Clearly, like the November 3 economic statement, Bill C-32 contains no measures to address the new economic reality of high living costs and a possible recession.
The Bloc Québécois bemoans the fact that this economic update mentions the issue of inflation 108 times without offering any additional support to vulnerable people even though there is a fear that a recession will hit as early as 2023. Quebeckers who are worried about the rising cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with the follow-up to last spring's budget. We must denounce a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers face the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are feared for the months to come.
This bill will not exactly go down in history, and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise. However, it does not contain anything harmful enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting in favour of Bill C-32, albeit half-heartedly, and I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about what is missing from this economic statement.
The first big thing missing from Bill C-32 is support for seniors. Still, to this day, Ottawa continues to deprive people aged 65 to 74 of the old age pension increase they need more than ever now. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so it is harder for them to deal with a cost of living increase as drastic as the one we are currently experiencing. These folks are the most likely to face tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy. Last week, a study by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées in partnership with the Observatoire québécois des inégalités revealed that nearly half of Quebec seniors do not have a livable income. Specifically, 49% of seniors aged 60 and over do not have a decent income to live in dignity. Members will agree that helping seniors is about more than just ageism, isolation and abuse. It is about ensuring that they have adequate financial support to live and age with dignity. This is not currently the case in terms of the Liberal government's priorities.
What is more, the government keeps penalizing seniors who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Inflation, unlike the federal government, does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. It is not by starving seniors 65 to 75 that we are going to encourage them to stay in their jobs. We do that by no longer penalizing them for working.
The second thing that has been largely forgotten in this economic update is employment insurance reform, a significant measure that the forgotten are counting on. Employment insurance is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession. While a growing number of analysts continue to be concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as next year, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer. The system has essentially been dismantled over the years and currently six in 10 workers who lose their jobs are not entitled to employment insurance. This is because they fail to qualify and, of course, they do not meet the current eligibility criteria. That is unacceptable in a developed country like ours.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the replacement rate to at least 60%, as was the case prior to 1993.
The Bloc Québécois also believes that we need to better redistribute the EI regions to reflect the reality of workers in the seasonal industry and unemployment in the regions. In my riding in the Lower St. Lawrence area, seasonal work is a reality for many people who work hard in industries such as forestry, tourism and agriculture. These industries are important for economic vitality, but they also help build our region's unique character. They are part of our culture and heritage.
By stubbornly refusing to move forward with the necessary EI reform, Ottawa is putting our workers, our seasonal industries and our regions in a precarious situation. It is ignoring and abandoning our needs, and yet the Liberals promised EI reform in both the 2015 and 2019 elections. How many times will the federal government let Quebec's regions down?
The third thing missing here is inflation, a word we have been hearing over and over. As I said earlier, the government has identified the problem, the rising cost of living, but is not actually doing anything about it. It tells us to expect very tough times this winter, but says nothing about how to get through them. It makes dire observations about the economic situation, but dismisses any and every opposition suggestion for dealing with it. Consider supply chains, whose fragility was exposed during the pandemic. Last spring's budget named the problem 71 times, and the economic update did so another 45 times. However, neither document offers any solutions whatsoever to the problem.
In Bill C-32, the government repeats measures it took in the past and acts on announcements from last April's budget, but there is nothing to suggest it knows where it is headed. This is all déjà vu. It is a celebration of Liberal lip service, but one cannot feed one's children with fine speeches.
Another major file that Ottawa continues to ignore is health transfers. The meeting of health ministers from Quebec, the provinces and the federal government from November 7 to 9, 2022, went nowhere. The federal government showed up empty-handed and did not offer any increase in health transfers. Even worse, it lectured and insulted the provinces, accusing them of mismanaging health care. That came from a government that is incapable of managing its own responsibilities such as passports, employment insurance and immigration. That is really rich coming from the federal Liberals.
The Bloc Québécois is defending the provinces and Quebec, which are united in asking for an increase in federal health transfers from 22% to 35%, or an increase from $42 billion to $60 billion. That is a $28 billion increase per year, as unanimously requested by Quebec and all the provinces. This permanent and unconditional increase would make it possible for Quebec to rebuild its health system, which was undermined by years of austerity caused by the reduction in transfers in the 1990s. It would also help address issues related to the aging population and the additional pressure this will put on the health care network.
Those three Bloc Québécois priorities are not included in the economic update. I would like to take the time to remind my fellow members, and all Quebeckers, of what the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to do in conjunction with this economic statement. Our request was both simple and meaningful in an uncertain and difficult economic context: We asked the government to refocus on its fundamental responsibilities towards vulnerable people.
The measure of a society is how much care and support it provides to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. To do this, three key measures are more crucial than ever: increasing health transfers; providing adequate support to people aged 65 and over, since they are on a fixed income with low indexation that fails to offset our rampant inflation; and, of course, undertaking a comprehensive reform of employment insurance. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not think any of these measures were worth considering.
1398 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/30/22 2:20:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I want to acknowledge the works of Victor‑Lévy Beaulieu, a giant of Quebec literature and a proud resident of Trois‑Pistoles.
Last month, Mr. Beaulieu was selected to receive the Prix de la langue française, one of the highest honours awarded to a writer in the entire Francophonie. He is the first Quebecker in history to receive this honourable distinction.
A man of many talents, Mr. Beaulieu has written novels, literary essays, plays and screenplays. He was also a teacher, a columnist and an editor. In addition to producing a monumental collection of works over the span of five decades, he also engaged in politics; above all, he is a staunch defender of the Quebec nation and a proud sovereignist.
Unfortunately, the Académie française and Académie Goncourt did not allow Mr. Beaulieu to accept his award when his health prevented him from travelling. This regrettable choice only emphasizes the importance of celebrating the talent and contribution of Victor‑Lévy Beaulieu to Quebec culture and the Francophonie.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what we should be supporting is the idea that the federal government should mind its own business, as the Canadian Dental Association has asked. It needs to stop creating programs that rush cheques out just to shore up shaky agreements. That is not what Quebeckers want. They want real programs.
During my speech, I said that this is a temporary program. It is not a universal program, as the NDP would like.
Nobody can be against virtue, but when the Liberals create a program, first of all, they need to respect the areas of jurisdiction they know nothing about, such as dental care. Second, they need to create long-term programs that truly reflect the needs of the people, without any discrimination. That is not what this bill currently does.
How can they justify the fact that 10% of children in Quebec will receive less support than the rest of the children in Canada? This is unacceptable.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we will repeat it as many times as it takes to get through to my colleague from Winnipeg North: We agree with the principle of the bill. It is just poorly put together.
Is my colleague from Winnipeg North okay with telling Quebeckers that they will be getting $70 million less? Is that a fair and equitable public program? Why is Quebec going to get less than the other provinces just because it already has dental care programs in place, whether it be group insurance or public programs that are already supported by the Government of Quebec?
Today, we are not opposed to the principle. We are against the fact that Quebec is not getting its fair share in areas under its exclusive jurisdiction. It is fine for the government to want to look good by sending out cheques, but when it is drafting legislation, it needs to take the time to study it and ensure that it supports all of the people it targets, without discrimination.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-31, which we are debating today.
The principle of the bill is very important, but the execution is very poor. I will explain why this bill is bad for Quebec and also discriminates against Quebeckers.
The bill has several components. I will address the first one, the dental benefit, but I will first put forward the Bloc Québécois's position.
My colleagues and I supported the bill at second reading because we agree with the underlying principle. During a cost of living crisis such as the one we are experiencing, it is both commendable and necessary to lighten the financial burden of low-income households, which are the most affected by the rising cost of gas, groceries, housing and just about everything in daily life. By funding dental care for low-income families with young children and also supporting renters, the bill could help Quebeckers and Canadians get through these tough times.
However, good intentions are not enough to make a good government or good laws. As drafted, the bill does not give Quebeckers their fair share because it discriminates against them and is unfair to them. That is why we will not support it at third reading as long as Quebeckers's interests are not more fully taken into account.
I will begin with an overview of the dental care part of the bill. First, to be eligible for a benefit, whoever submits a claim must meet the following conditions: They must have a dependent child under the age of 12; they must have a family income under $90,000; the dependent child must not be fully insured under a government or private plan; they must have incurred or plan to incur dental care expenses during the period in question; they must receive the Canada child benefit for the year prior to the claim.
Whoever meets all the requirements I have just listed can then qualify for the following benefits: $650 if household income is under $60,000; $390 if household income is between $70,000 and $80,000; and $260 if household income is between $80,000 and $90,000.
The bill provides for the possibility of receiving a payment for two separate periods, one from October 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 and the other from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. It is already clear that this is far form a permanent and sustainable program. This is the program being lauded by the government and the NDP, who want a universal dental care program. Those are nice promises in theory, but the reality is quite different.
I will clarify the injustice against Quebec in this bill. At first glance, it seems fine; the bill could even be said to be a very good thing. However, when we look at the amounts that are meant to promote the oral health of young children in Quebec and Canada, we can see that that is clearly not the case.
Shaping public policy requires careful consideration of the consequences of the measures being proposed. In reading the independent and in-depth report prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Officer—the Bloc Québécois did not dream this up, or rather have a nightmare about all the details of this bill—we see that, as the bill stands, Quebec would only receive 13% of the total amounts allocated to the dental component, or $92 million out of $703 million.
If the NDP-Liberal government had introduced a truly equitable bill allowing Quebec to receive its fair share of the funding based on population, which is nearly 23% of the total population of Canada, Quebeckers could have received $162 million.
A $70-million injustice is literally being inflicted on Quebeckers, thanks to the NDP-Liberal government. As an aside, $70 million is a little more than what the monarchy costs Canada. The government could help people by abolishing the monarchy.
I will come back to dental care, but when we look at all of this we see that there is a $70-million injustice. I am already prepared to answer questions and I have not even finished my speech. People think that we do not want to help Quebeckers, those who need financial support for dental care. Who would sneeze at $70 million? It is unbelievable.
It is obvious that this $70 million will not go into the pockets of families with young children, who currently need this money more than ever. To illustrate the blatant injustice Quebeckers will face, let me just say that they will receive an average of $83 per child under the age of 12, while families outside Quebec will receive an average of $168 per child. In reality, these are one-time payments. On the ground, this reality will mean that half of the families who would be entitled to a cheque if they lived outside Quebec will not be entitled to anything at all.
Let me explain why Quebec families will receive less money. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there are two reasons why this bill puts Quebec families at great disadvantage. The first reason is that the Quebec government has implemented a government program under which many parents do not pay any fees when they visit the dentist. The second reason is that the unionization rates in Quebec are higher than elsewhere in Canada and, therefore, Quebeckers are more likely to have group insurance that covers dental expenses.
It is clear that Quebec is being denied its fair share because its government set up a dental care program for children in 1974 and because its workers have better benefits. Quebec is being penalized because visionary, progressive decision-makers decided long ago that it is right, just and equitable in an advanced society like ours for kids to get dental care regardless of their parents' income.
There is another consequence to this bill, possibly an unintended one. I refuse to believe that the Liberal-NDP government deliberately set out to inflict this injustice on Quebec with this bill. I believe that all my House of Commons colleagues are well-intentioned. I am sure they want only the best for all the Quebeckers and Canadians they represent. I believe this is a mistake caused by the federal government's desire to implement a complex system quickly despite having no expertise in this area.
Obviously, this is a hastily conceived piece of legislation that was cobbled together following an agreement between the Liberal government and the NDP. This bill is designed to keep a shaky coalition alive. The idea of bringing in a dental plan is nothing new. It was in the NDP platform in 2019 and 2021. The only reason it is now being included in Bill C-31, which is flawed and will be passed under a gag order, is to keep their shaky, half-baked deal alive.
As a final point, I just want to mention that some civil society actors like the Canadian Dental Association have told us that the best way to proceed with this bill would be to transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces.
I hope the Bloc Québécois amendments will ensure that some real progress can be made, so we can move forward, so Quebec can have its fair share of the measures and, of course, so the government can fix its mistakes.
1263 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which is particularly important to the Bloc Québécois.
Today's strategy from the Liberals, supported by the NDP, was to move time allocation on a bill that is vital to protecting French in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.
Bill C‑13, which is currently under consideration, represents the culmination of efforts to modernize the Official Languages Act. This objective is set out in the mandate letter of the current Minister of Official Languages, as well as that of her predecessor.
In the September 2020 Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the special status of French and its responsibility to protect and promote it, both outside and within Quebec.
The stage seemed to be set for the federal government to protect French in Quebec. It appeared the government would include the reform, requests and demands of those dealing with the decline of their language on a daily basis, namely Quebeckers.
However, in both Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament and the current version, the Official Languages Act reform completely ignores the demands made unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly and the Bloc Québécois about protecting French in Quebec.
In fact, the federal government's bill flies in the face of the Quebec National Assembly's Bill 96. One of the objectives of Bill 96 is to extend the application of the Charter of the French Language throughout Quebec. Despite that, in their interventions and communications, the Liberals claim to support Bill 101 and brag about being champions of the French language.
Since the Prime Minister and Liberal members claim that they have always supported the Charter of the French Language, how can they introduce a bill that will prevent the Quebec government from applying that charter within its own territory? Based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, provincial laws can apply to federally regulated businesses as long as they do not directly violate any applicable federal law.
Quebec has long been asking Ottawa to allow Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses based on that ruling. A resolution supported by all parties in the Quebec National Assembly and adopted on December 1, 2020, stated that the Charter of the French Language “must be applied to companies operating under federal jurisdiction within Québec” and called on the Government of Canada to “make a formal commitment to work with Québec to ensure the implementation of this change”.
The message could not be any clearer, but what did the Liberals do at the first opportunity? They imposed on Quebec a language regime that subjects all federally regulated businesses to the Official Languages Act, while at the same time destroying Quebec's ability to apply its Charter of the French Language to businesses operating on its territory.
That should not be taken lightly. There is even a serious and real danger for French in Quebec with Bill C‑13. In the event of a difference between the federal regime, which is based on bilingualism, and Quebec's regime, which is based on the primacy of French, the federal regime would prevail.
The Minister of Official Languages can repeat as much as she wants that Bill C‑13 will protect French in Quebec as well as Bill 101, but that is not true. It is factually incorrect.
Bill C‑13 seeks to apply the bilingualism regime to Air Canada. Francophones will be given the right to complain in the event that the right to work in French is breached. It has been shown many times that this model cannot protect the rights of francophones to work and be served in their language. Despite the thousands of complaints against Air Canada over the years, we see that for these non-compliant organizations, French is nothing but an irritant. How will extending this model to all federally regulated private business stop the decline of French?
What is more, Bill C‑13 confirms the right to work in English at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. I repeat, the Official Languages Act is reinforcing bilingualism, not protecting French. Some will say that the bilingualism approach seems reasonable at first glance. It leaves it up to the individual to interact in the language of their choice. However, when we take into account the linguistic and demographic dynamics in which that choice is made, this approach has devastating and irreversible consequences on French. Do not take it from me. It is science.
Professor Guillaume Rousseau from Université de Sherbrooke explained this phenomenon to the Standing Committee on Official Languages in February:
...virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only [an approach that focuses on just one official language] can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language....
The...approach may seem generous, since individuals may choose which language to use among many, but it is in fact the strongest language that will dominate....In real terms, the federal government should do less for English and more for French in Quebec.
As my party's science and innovation critic, I must insist on the importance of basing our decisions on scientific data. Ottawa must listen to reason, listen to the science and respect the evidence. Science cannot be invoked only when it suits our purposes and ignored when it does not, and the Prime Minister needs to take that into account.
When we look around the House of Commons, we quickly see that the Liberal Party stands completely alone when it comes to the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. It has always been easy for the Prime Minister to say that he is in favour of Bill 101 as long as that did not require him to take any action, politically speaking. Today, it is clear that French is declining in Quebec and Canada and that its decline is accelerating so fast that the Prime Minister himself has been forced to recognize it and express concern. He still says that he is in favour of Bill 101, but he is not walking the talk.
We are witnessing yet another attempt by the Liberal government to create a wide, untenable gap. On the one hand, the government wants to be the champion of French because it feels the public pressure to protect French better, including in Quebec. On the other hand, it completely refuses to let Quebec control its own language policy. The result is that the Liberal Party now stands alone in its stubbornness. We saw that when my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît introduced Bill C-238, which seeks to subject all federally regulated businesses to the Charter of the French Language. The Bloc, the Conservative Party and the NDP supported it, but the Liberal Party did not.
Let me make this clear. The Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C‑13 unless and until amendments are made that enable Quebec to be the master of its own language policy. The federal government must acknowledge that the Quebec nation is grappling with anglicization, and it must introduce a differentiated approach that recognizes and respects Quebec's unique linguistic reality. That is why explicit recognition that the Charter of the French Language takes precedence over the Official Languages Act for federally regulated businesses in Quebec is a minimum requirement. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the National Assembly of Quebec want, so that is what Quebec needs.
1288 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 11:50:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his question.
We would be working on all kinds of things, such as an upcoming budget. The government did not present a budget for two years, which was unprecedented.
We would certainly be working on the record inflation rates that are affecting all Quebeckers and Canadians.
We would certainly be working on improving working conditions in our health care system, while the government stubbornly tries to hold off negotiations with the provinces and Quebec on the increase to health transfers until the pandemic is over. No one knows when this pandemic will be over, which means that the government is shelving that issue.
We would be working on the housing crisis that is raging in Quebec and in many regions, including my own. The city of Rimouski has a historically low vacancy rate of 2.2%.
In the meantime, members are sowing division and trying to figure out who is and who is not vaccinated.
Those are the types of things we are not working on.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:49:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are all familiar with the saying “do as I say, not as I do”.
That is what the Liberals are doing right now. It is important for them to have polls to back them up so they can justify resorting to the Emergencies Act. The member for Châteauguay—Lacolle said earlier that over 70% of Quebeckers support its use.
However, she forgot to mention that only 347 people were surveyed for the poll. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously opposed the use of the Emergencies Act. Seven of the 10 Canadian provinces are also opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Does this mean nothing to the Liberals?
What bothers me the most is when the member talks about the rule of law. The rule of law is the opposite of arbitrary law.
Which of the laws in force today is so inadequate as to justify enacting the Emergencies Act?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:04:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
This crucial debate is not to be taken lightly. It was prompted by an event that will go down in the history of the Canadian federation, though not as one of its most glorious moments.
Let me say off the top that I am against the use of the Emergencies Act as set out in the orders, and I am definitely against its use in Quebec. To support my argument, I will review what the act does.
As its name suggests, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort that can only be used when a situation is so imminent, so overwhelming and so insurmountable a threat, that it is strictly impossible for the government to control it under existing legislation.
The consequence of the application of the act is that the executive may, by order, impose measures to ensure the safety of Canadians, the territorial integrity of the country and the protection of the constitutionally established order. This may include prohibiting movement or assembly, regulating the use of specified property, taking control of public services, imposing fines or even summary imprisonment.
Given the potentially antifreedom and undemocratic nature of the measures that can be imposed, Parliament has taken care to specify an exhaustive list of situations that can justify invoking the act. Accordingly, the only grounds for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act are as follows.
The first is a public welfare emergency. It should be noted that since the act came into force, none of the devastating floods, winter ice storms or wildfires that Canadians and Quebeckers have faced has led the government to use these extraordinary powers.
In addition to natural disasters, the definition of a public welfare emergency also includes disease. It is especially pertinent to note that the global health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic did not require the invocation of the Emergencies Act, even though it has caused over 35,000 deaths in Canada and nearly six million deaths worldwide to date, and it is about to mark its ill-fated second anniversary. Despite their exceptional nature, the actions taken to respond to the needs created by this unprecedented crisis were possible without resorting to the Emergencies Act.
Third, the declaration of an international emergency, which is defined as a situation or acts of coercion involving the use of force between countries, may constitute grounds for invoking the Emergencies Act. Similarly, if Canada were to go to war, that may justify the use of the exceptional measures allowed under the Emergencies Act.
The fourth and final rationale provided as justification for a government giving itself these extraordinary powers is that of a public order emergency. Since that term is rather vague, the legislator was good enough to provide a definition in section 16 of the act:
public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency;
For the members who are wondering what a national emergency is, section 3 of the Act specifies that it:
...is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
That is significant. My colleagues will agree that the wording is very explicit as to how severe the circumstances must be to justify invoking the Act. Whether it is invoked for one or the other of the reasons I just mentioned, it is an extremely serious measure that must not be taken lightly by the government. It should be a last resort—a tool to be used only after we tried to turn off the leaky tap, used every tool in the box and called in the plumber, but the tap is still leaking.
This is the first time since the Emergencies Act was passed in 1988 that a Prime Minister of Canada has felt the need to resort to the special powers it confers. Its previous incarnation, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times, specifically, during the First World War, during the Second World War, and during the episode of October 1970, an episode that deeply scarred the people of Quebec.
To be fair, I would like to note that the two pieces of legislation are not comparable and we have to be careful about comparing everything from that perspective.
The Emergencies Act requires the government to show that it is facing a dangerous and urgent situation that it finds impossible to deal with it under ordinary laws. The government failed to demonstrate any such thing in the statement of reasons it submitted to parliamentarians. Even worse, it did not even try to do so, since it has remained completely silent on the topic.
I want to explain to members why. It is simply because there is no good reason to justify using this special legislation. There is no legal vacuum preventing the government from resolving the crisis in Ottawa.
The vast majority of protests and blockades that we have seen over the past few weeks have been brought under control or removed without the use of the federal Emergencies Act. The Sarnia, Fort Erie, Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were successfully removed. All of those border crossings are now back up and running, and trade with the United States has been re-established, so it seems that law enforcement was able to put an end to these protests without needing to use any special powers.
What is it about the Ottawa protest that makes it so unstoppable that it cannot be dealt with under the existing legislative framework? What laws are insufficient to resolve the crisis? Why do those laws not allow us to deal with the situation effectively? We do not know. The government has never said.
What is more, before invoking the Emergencies Act, the Prime Minister dragged his feet for two long weeks rather than trying to resolve the crisis. How can he claim, after—
1069 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
