44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 14, 2023 02:00PM
- Jun/14/23 2:18:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to my dad.
I would like to wish a happy anniversary to the residents of Terrebonne, who are celebrating their city's 350th anniversary this year.
Since it was founded in 1673, the face of Terrebonne has been shaped by the construction of a flour mill, and then by the arrival of the textile industry. It is thanks to people like Charles Aubert de La Chesnaye, Calixte Gauthier, Louis Lecompte Dupré and Joseph Masson, who instilled an enduring entrepreneurial spirit right from the start, that Terrebonne has grown into the 10th-largest city in Quebec today.
I invite everyone to come out and enjoy the 350th anniversary festivities and discover everything Terrebonne has to offer, such as Île‑des‑Moulins and Vieux‑Terrebonne, where I have the pleasure of having my constituency office.
The wonderful team at the 350th anniversary steering committee has put together a rich and diverse program of events. I would like to thank them for all the effort and heart they put into this historic year.
I wish Terrebonne a happy 350th.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 4:57:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in this place and present petitions on issues that are important to Canadians.
The first petition that I will be presenting today is from a number of Canadians who have stated a significant concern regarding some of the language that has been used in the committee studying medical assistance in dying, specifically by Louis Roy from the Quebec college of physicians, who recommended expanding euthanasia to “babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes”.
These petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children in this country.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/23 4:59:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned around the comments made by Louis Roy of the Quebec college of physicians, recommending the expansion of euthanasia to babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and serious syndromes.
This proposed legalization of the killing of infants is deeply offensive to the folks who have signed this petition, and they want to state emphatically that infanticide is always wrong. They call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow for the euthanasia of children.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill and the care he took to ensure that it did not affect Quebec's environmental sovereignty.
Can he clarify how his bill goes much further than the study we did in committee on Bill S‑5 with respect to the right to a healthy environment?
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc for her thoughtful intervention tonight. I was particularly interested in her comments around working together with the provinces and territories to come to an agreement.
With respect to the Canada child benefit, we were the government that negotiated no clawbacks.
We are now putting into legislation the early learning and child care benefit that we have also negotiated with the provinces and territories.
We are developing a track record. In fact, we have one we are expanding, and this will become part of what we are doing together with the provinces and territories. Instead of telling them what to do, we will work together.
Could the hon. member talk about how important it is, particularly with us working with Quebec and the other provinces, to get this right together?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a must, especially when dealing with issues such as this.
It was hard not to work with Quebec on child care. They drew on the Quebec model because it is recognized around the world. We have been using the model for 25 years, so yes, an agreement was required. This time it was asymmetrical. Members can understand the context.
To put in place a Canadian benefit for people with disabilities akin to the guaranteed income supplement we know from pension plans, it is a must. It is going to take more than co-operation; it is going to take agreements.
We already have social programs in Quebec. We already have support for these individuals. If they want to take additional measures that are complementary, they absolutely must have agreements with the provinces, which also have jurisdiction in this area.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am equally optimistic. I would be more inclined to see the glass as half full than half empty. That is already a step forward.
People with disabilities are in great need of a boost to their abilities. Fortunately, there are programs that support them. In any case, I am proud of what is being done in Quebec, but I think we have to go much further.
What we need as parliamentarians to ensure that the work is done quickly, realistically and in line with the objective is accountability and regular updates on the work being done. Without this, a lot of time can be lost.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am so very pleased to speak to Bill C‑35 this evening, especially since I prepared my speech by running the statements I am about to make by my colleague from La Prairie, who is an economist. They call him “the big softy of La Prairie” now because he is so nice. It makes a change from his former life in Quebec City, where he was known as the “butcher of Sanguinet”. That was my little introduction.
Why am I so pleased? It is because, in my former life, I taught a course on social policy to social workers, in which we discussed Quebec's family policy extensively as one of the best examples of a successful social policy. As we know, Quebec's family policy encompasses a number of measures, including child care services and parental leave, which were introduced by Pauline Marois.
When explaining to students how to grasp the scope of a social policy such as child care, I always began by identifying the different ways of looking at society. The fact that there are multiple ways of looking at society gives rise to ideological debates. We are seeing these ideological debates play out this evening. I find that a good way of distinguishing between the people I would call social democrats and those who espouse what might be called classical liberalism—or conservatism, as I should call it for the benefit of people here—is to look at how social policies are articulated.
I would define a progressive as someone who fights for individuals to be able to define themselves on their own. That is what progressives try to do. Why is that? As we know, there are people who are stuck in a predetermined social position. Here is a simple example: People whose parents are on welfare have a tougher time at school because they have fewer resources. They are at risk of becoming stuck in a predetermined position that they do not want, but that was assigned to them by their circumstances, because they were born into families with limited resources, or because they were born into a social group where education was not valued. These are people who are assigned to a predetermined social position.
As I see it, a progressive is a person who clearly knows that people born into favourable circumstances have enough social capital to achieve social fulfillment. Equal opportunity takes this into consideration and creates mechanisms that allow less advantaged individuals to experience upward mobility. The concept is nothing new. The member for La Prairie explained to me that this is the very basis of Keynesianism.
According to the liberalism of John Maynard Keynes, a free market is not enough. We also need a social safety net so that every individual can participate in society. We know what this social safety net is. Our social safety net is access to education and health care. This allows for greater equity and gives people in less enviable social circumstances the chance to fulfill their potential. That is how I would describe a progressive.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that this is the role of the market, that this is the role of the individual and that, if the individual puts in enough effort, they will succeed. That is what we call a meritocracy. I was basically trying to explain to students that these are two very different visions of society. My goal at the time was not to participate in ideological polarization, but I did point out that, generally speaking, it is the more progressive people who will have a positive vision of social policy, and therefore a positive vision of a measure like $5-a-day child care.
We are seeing that tonight in the House. My Conservative colleagues' speeches reminded me of the ones I heard in Quebec 25 years ago when child care was first introduced. Some people said that parents are in the best position to make decisions for their child. No one is in a better position to choose than the parent. No one is saying otherwise. No one is saying that it is not up to parents to decide what will happen to their child.
People also said that the lack of child care spaces was creating inequality. It was not just for the mother who wanted to send her children to a day care that had no more spots, and it was not just for the mother who wanted to keep her children at home either. To me, this is just rhetoric that does not offer any solution and just advances a political agenda, but does not account for specific situations experienced by individuals.
I say that because history has not vindicated those who supported this point of view. After Quebec's family policy was brought in 25 years ago, we realized that there were more women in the workforce. That was Pauline Marois's initial goal when she introduced this policy. We also realized children started school with fewer language delays. They will succeed academically because they are not starting at a disadvantage. We know that when a child enters school with language delays and has trouble integrating into the school curriculum, that child has less of a chance of moving up and succeeding than a student who has supportive parents. A child who is sent to a day care that provides good services could have those delays sorted out. That truly is what happened, looking back, 25 years later, at the benefits of Quebec's family policy.
This means that a successful social policy is one that takes into account a multitude of factors. Quebec's decision to introduce a child care system was about more than just enabling mothers to enter the labour market. It was also about enabling mothers to escape poverty. It was about enabling children to have initial contact with education, learn how to be independent and embark on a path towards an undoubtedly brighter future. As we have seen, it worked, because Quebec is a progressive society.
Let me provide a few examples. Not to be petty or mean-spirited, but Canada's family policy is 25 years behind, unfortunately. It happens. The federal government sometimes lags behind. The same can be said of medical assistance in dying. We are not blaming the federal government. It is slightly delayed, which is normal. It is also the same thing with secularism. In 25 years, perhaps the federal government will realize that a law on secularism is also progressive. However, that is a different debate that I do not necessarily want to get into.
It is important to understand how a social policy fits in. It is also important to realize that there is an ideological struggle going on between the two visions. That is what we are seeing tonight. However, the ultimate goal is to do good. The ultimate goal is to ensure that every child has access to quality services and will eventually be able to thrive and escape from conditions in which they could be trapped. As I was saying, a child born into a bad environment is more likely than others not to have access to education and, ultimately, to have a bleaker future.
Quebec has shown what successful day care services look like. I was saying that the federal government is lagging behind, but it will eventually catch up. All of this is fantastic, and it means the Bloc Québécois will likely vote in favour of Bill C‑35. However, I would not be true to myself if I did not point out the fly in the ointment.
The fly in the ointment goes hand in hand with the disease that is eating away at federalism. It is a disease called the fiscal imbalance. I have no intention of reopening the debate on health care funding. However, as will be shown, the logic is undeniable. What does the federal government do all the time? I call it predatory federalism. It encroaches on jurisdictions that do not belong to it. Once inside these jurisdictions, it proposes policies and then it pulls out. In the process, it creates a sort of dependency and obligations. Then it avoids paying the costs associated with these obligations. This is what we saw happen in the health care system.
If we look back to the early 1960s, we will find that under the legislation that created the public health system, for every dollar invested in or spent on health, 50¢ came from the federal government and 50¢ came from the provinces. That was in 1960.
Over the years, health transfers went through a series of reforms. The 1970s was when the first change was made to substantially reduce the federal contribution to health care.
In the 1990s, Canadian-style neo-liberalism arrived with Paul Martin. At that time, transfers were slashed outright, and Canada's budget was balanced on the backs of the provinces. If I can use 1996-97 and 1997-98 as benchmark years, the federal government repeatedly cut transfer payments by $2.5 billion a year, if I remember correctly. This created intense pressure on the provinces.
In one of his occasional moments of lucidity, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien told his colleagues at a G7 meeting that he could balance the books at any time without paying a political price, because it was the provinces that had to deal with the financial difficulties he created.
A child care system is now in place and Quebec will be given $6 billion over five years. There are no guarantees, however. The government is currently in a minority, which is good. The NDP is supporting it, barely. That is good because it means the Liberals cannot do everything they want. Sooner or later, there will be a financial reckoning. That makes the Conservatives' mouths water. This is what gets them excited, like a kid in a candy store. Sooner or later, we will have to return to a balanced budget.
When the government loses its alliance with the NDP, it will have to propose measures to return to a balanced budget. What will it do? Will it cut its own spending? Technically, it will be tempted to lower the payments it makes to the provinces. The despicable thing about all of this is that, generally, the government does this after having previously set standards.
As we have seen, the government wants to impose health care standards. The government is telling the provinces that if it sends money back to them to reinvest in health care, they will have to invest it in specific services, such as long-term health care or mental health care. The particularities of each province are not even taken into account. The federal government does not have the expertise, but it is telling the provinces how to behave. It is doing it with health care, and there is no guarantee that we will not see the same thing with child care.
The $6 billion announced in 2021 by the Prime Minister and Premier Legault is fantastic. However, there is no guarantee that when the government goes back to its old ways and wants to balance the budget, it will not slash these transfer payments and make the provinces bear the brunt once again. The provinces will have to bear the brunt and face their residents as services are cut and access to services becomes more difficult.
This is the blind spot with child care and Bill C‑35. We cannot totally agree with what the government is proposing. We know very well that, in the future, when the federal government intrudes on our areas of jurisdiction, that could translate into Quebec and other provincial politicians paying the price. They might have to deal with the federal government's predatory federalism reflex, which leads it to encroach on jurisdictions and then to pull out, refusing to pay the political price and instead foisting it onto others.
I say this because that is generally what happens. In my opinion, my Liberal and Conservative colleagues resemble each other in this respect. Ideologically speaking, they are willing to provide certain services to the public, but when the time comes to pay, they are much more tight-fisted.
The political instinct is to secure their own future, without thinking of the future of provincial politicians or the people's needs.
In my introduction, I said that I considered Quebec to be a progressive society. As we can see with child care, Quebec is 25 years ahead of the federal government. That 25-year head start is also reflected in the federal government not being ready right now to meet its obligations, at least when it comes to health care.
The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑35 with all due reservations. I urge my Conservative colleagues to stop using the sterile rhetoric about how they want to defend everyone's freedom to choose whether they want to send their children to a public day care or keep them at home. It is not constructive at all and it does nothing to combat the fundamental problem of poverty in all advanced western countries.
Whenever we look at poverty indicators, who tops the list? It is single mothers. That is how it is in Quebec and every other province.
The best way to support these individuals and get them out of the disadvantaged conditions they are in is to have proper child care services. However, let us remain vigilant, because if the past is any indication, I am convinced that in five, six, or seven years, we will see a Liberal or Conservative government ready to cut the financial support currently offered to the provinces.
2332 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition stated previously that the Liberals think it is up to the federal government to decide how children should live and how their care should be delivered. The Bloc members think the Government of Quebec should have this responsibility. However, the Conservatives realize that the issue of child care is neither a federal nor provincial jurisdiction; it is a family matter.
Does my colleague from the Bloc agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he claimed that the Government of Quebec has no business being involved in the administration and delivery of child care in Quebec? He does not seem to, but I just want to check.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, the same criticisms we are hearing now were expressed by certain politicians in Quebec 25 years ago. I can guarantee that there is not a single soul in Quebec, not one Quebec politician, who would be prepared to stand up and say that the child care services we now have should be discontinued.
As for what the Leader of the Opposition said, this is not the first nonsense I have heard from him. He has claimed that people are asking for medical assistance in dying because they cannot afford to eat. These ridiculous comments reflect poorly on the member and damage his credibility, to the point that anything else he says will be tainted by his lack of judgment. I say this without malice.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although, at the end, I was somewhat hurt by the fact that he did not talk about the possibility of an NDP government in five or six years. I will try to rise above that this evening.
I completely agree with him that Quebec led the way with its accessible public child care program. That program changed the lives of tens of thousands of Quebec families. It is good that the rest of Canada is finally following Quebec's lead today. We, in the NDP, insisted that accessible public child care be subsidized by the government or provided by non-profit organizations.
I would like to ask my colleague a question about the matter of choice that the Conservatives have been talking a lot about. When a parent is forced to stay at home because private child care services cost $50, $60 or $80 a day and it would cost them more to go to work, that is not a choice. What the Conservatives want is a lack of choice where a parent has to stay at home because private child care services are too costly. That is what the Conservatives want.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, rarely do I agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, but it has happened tonight.
The proof is in the indicators from the 25 years that followed the implementation of Quebec's family policy. Quebec is among the societies in the western world with the highest number of women in the workforce and a steady decline in the number of single mothers living in poverty. This means that something we are doing must be working.
As for the beginning of my colleague's question, I apologize if I did not raise the possibility of an NDP government, but I did raise the possibility that, 25 years from now, this assembly will realize that secularism is also progressive.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with the Bloc in committee on this. I just want to say, for the record, I am a Conservative woman and I am not at home raising my kids, but it would be fun if I could be home with them at the same time. He did make reference that Conservatives only want women to stay at home, so I just want to have it on the record that is not the truth.
I was curious about his term “predatory federalism”. I thought that was kind of an interesting term when we look at overstepping jurisdiction and wading into waters that are not the federal government's. I am curious to know his thoughts. I know they are supporting. I know Quebec has been a champion in child care, and it is progressive in many regards, but does he think the Liberals have overstepped with this bill?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have four children, and they are all grown up or almost. The younger ones are 13 and 15 years old. The oldest is 24, and she started day care about the time that the program was created. My children were in different types of day care, which were all subsidized. They were in day care centres or in home day care. Those were the options.
I would like my colleague to speak a little more about the options in Quebec for people with atypical schedules, for example, those working nights, whether they are pilot projects or permanent programs.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the NDP for his inspiring speech. It is true that, in Quebec, early childhood centres and public child care has been accessible for 25 years. This program should help fathers as much as mothers, but because of the inequity in family-related and domestic tasks, this kind of program is more advantageous to mothers.
Economist Pierre Fortin even estimated that, in the first years of the program in Quebec, 70,000 women were able to return to the labour market thanks to these accessible, public and universal child care centres. According to the NDP leader, what are the benefits for families in Ontario, British Columbia and just about everywhere else in Canada?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this will allow the rest of Canada to enjoy what Quebec already has. It is wonderful, and something that we want to share. It is one of the areas where Quebec has been a trailblazer. Lessons can be learned from the way that Quebec implemented this program, which has had an enormous impact on peoples' lives.
My colleague said that it should help fathers too, but that mothers will benefit disproportionately in light of historical inequities. I am glad he raised this positive point. For the time being, we need this program. It will help a lot of families and a lot of mothers. I am proud that we forced the government to introduce this bill. We are going to pass it.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the legislation we have before us this evening would put in some fundamental pillars that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. Even for Canadians who do not have children, there is going to be an impact on society as a whole, and that includes the issues of affordability, accessibility and so on. We know that, and we recognize that.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, that is why we brought forward the legislation, and we look forward to being able to see the reality, as we witnessed in the province of Quebec, which clearly demonstrated the benefits of a $10-a-day day care.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me attempt to answer both questions with the same answer.
The member is right that Ken Dryden had a wonderful program. It was universal and all the provinces and territories were on side. That is why I say to please not trust the Conservatives on this because the first thing Stephen Harper did was he got rid of the program. It is unfortunate we were in a minority government at that time, but I will not comment on what happened with the NDP or the Bloc.
At the end of the day, this legislation would prevent a potential Conservative government 15 years from now from being able to decide in cabinet, without a thorough debate, to get rid of a fantastic program. Had it been put in place back when Ken Dryden brought it forward, we would be so much further ahead. One only needs to look at the province of Quebec and the impact it has had on its workforce. In particular, there are more women engaged, as a percentage, in the workforce.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, notwithstanding some provincial efforts in subsidies, and I think Quebec stands out as a particular exception, we have largely had a market-driven child care system in Canada for as long as anyone can remember. We have had non-profit operators operate in that space and we have had for-profit operators operate in that space, yet, despite consistent demand over decades, the market has not provided the number of spaces needed in order for families that want child care to get it.
We have largely had a market approach to child care for a long time, and we have seen an incredible and persistent market failure. How does the member make sense of that market failure, and what does she think are the causes of that market failure?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 12:11:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we hear so often from the government's talking points about how seriously it allegedly takes the issue of foreign interference, and I implore them to please stop with the talk and show Canadians some action.
Honestly, I shudder to think what the Chinese Communist Party must think of the Liberal government's handling to date of foreign interference. They must be wondering just how pathetic this government can get with its flimsiest of efforts to crack down on foreign operatives roaming around our country. It seems of little consequence that Chinese operatives are free to interfere in our electoral system, intimidate our citizens and open any number of police stations across the country, all at will and even with some financial abetting from our government.
The recent bungling must have sent Beijing into convulsions of laughter when our government gave up to $200,000 in funding to a Quebec charity that the RCMP itself has said might be hosting a secret Chinese police station. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if the talking points have now settled on the number of Chinese police stations in operation in Canada, or does that number conveniently fall under the rubric of national security? I want to get this straight.
Canadian citizens can be followed, confronted, threatened, intimidated and live in fear on our soil, and their government is unable to stand up to defend them. What kind of government is that? When will Canadian citizens of Chinese ancestry, or not, finally get some answers?
How long does an RCMP investigation into Chinese police stations operating in Canada take? Has anything been done? Has anyone been arrested or declared persona non grata and sent packing?
The most important question that remains is this: Why has there been such a reluctance by the Canadian government to take definitive, concrete action against foreign interference in Canada? Does Beijing have something on the Prime Minister or the cabinet? Is there some vested financial trade deal at play? Is our government still haunted by the Huawei heiress and the Prime Minister does not want to receive another public dressing-down from President Xi?
Canada expelled a Chinese diplomat who targeted the family of an MP, and the government seems almost more apologetic than angry. Is our government even capable of informing China, in no uncertain terms, that we as a country are neither its personal plaything nor a doormat? Canada has the right to stand up for our national security and sovereignty, just as China does on the slightest perceived indignity, real or imaginary.
It is clear that the matter of illegal foreign police stations, just like the overarching issue of foreign interference in Canada, either of Chinese or Iranian persuasion, can only be fully addressed by the convening of a full and independent public inquiry. Will the government call a full, independent public inquiry in our lifetime?
485 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
