44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 30, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-356, and I have a lot to say about this bill. In my speech, I will try to address first the Conservative position and then that of the Bloc Québécois. If I have time, I will speak briefly on homelessness.
Bill C-356 reiterates the Conservative leader’s rhetoric on the housing crisis. In his view, the municipalities are responsible for the housing crisis by tying up real estate development in useless red tape. Let us recall that the Conservatives were among the first to play politics on this issue by directly attacking municipal democracy when they stated, during their opposition day on May 2, 2023, that they wanted to penalize municipalities that do not build enough housing.
The Bloc Québécois has long held that those best positioned to know the housing needs in their respective jurisdictions are the provinces, Quebec and the municipalities. The federal government has no business interfering. Moreover, let us keep in mind that housing is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Should our colleagues need a reminder, I invite them to refer to subsections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution, which give the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights as well as matters of a local nature. The federal government therefore has no right to interfere.
Let us keep in mind the importance of municipal policy, the importance of this level of government and its closeness to the people. Municipalities know their areas and the actual needs of their citizens best. They are the ones that provide direct services and organize their living environment and their neighbourhoods.
When the Conservatives say that municipalities and cities are the ones that delay the process, that is nonsense. They call the phenomenon “not in my backyard”. We believe that the Conservatives prefer to dodge public consultations that help obtain social licence by communicating effectively with the neighbours of a given project. Instead, they prefer to give a free pass to real estate developers. To their mind, the public consultations that cities and citizens are calling for are a terrible scourge that harms everyone and blocks the construction of new homes. Nonetheless, the Conservatives should understand why public consultations exist; they exist particularly because we do not build just anything, anywhere, willy-nilly.
When it was elected in 2011, the Conservative government did not see fit to increase the budget to assist households still deemed to be inadequately housed, letting it stagnate at its 2011 level, or $250 million a year. When it introduced its 2015 budget, that government chose not to extend the funding for social housing stock. Bill C-356 blames the entire housing shortage on municipalities, but this crisis would not be nearly as serious as it is now, if, under the Conservatives, the federal government had not withdrawn funding for the construction of social housing.
The bill aims to control municipalities. It is an irresponsible bill that denies any federal responsibility in the matter and confirms that the Conservative Party will do nothing to address the crisis if it comes into power.
It is also a bill that offers no solutions. There are lots of condos on the market at $3,000 a month. What is lacking is housing that people can afford. That is where the government should focus its efforts. This notion, however, is completely absent from the Conservative leader’s vision. Bill C-356 gives developers the keys to the city so they can build more $3,000-a-month condos.
In short, the bill’s solution to the housing crisis is to let the big real estate developers do anything, anywhere, in any way they see fit. The populist solution offered by the bill ignores the fact that people do not only live in housing, but also in neighbourhoods and cities. That means we need infrastructure for water and sewers, for roads, and for public and private services, such as schools and grocery stores. Cities have a duty to impose conditions and to ensure that their citizens are well served.
Bill C-356 is also disrespectful and divisive. Since 1973, under the Robert Bourassa government, the Quebec Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif has prevented Ottawa from dealing directly with Quebec municipalities. The Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Framework Agreement reflects this reality, stipulating that Ottawa has no right to intervene in establishing priorities.
What Bill C-356 proposes is to tear up this agreement. Considering that the agreement took 27 months to negotiate, Bill-356 promises two years of bickering, during which all projects will be paralyzed. In the middle of the housing crisis, this is downright disastrous.
If housing starts in a city do not increase as required by Ottawa, Bill C‑356 proposes cutting gas tax and public transit transfers by 1% for each percentage point shortfall under the target it unilaterally set. For example, housing starts in Quebec dropped 60% this year instead of increasing 15%. If Bill C‑356 were in place, this would mean a reduction in transfer payments of about 75%.
Bill C‑356 goes even further, proposing that financing for urban transit be withheld if cities do not meet the 15% target it unilaterally set. This policy would result in a greater use of automobiles, since transit would only be built after the fact, not in conjunction with new housing developments.
Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois already has a wide range of proposals for solutions to deal with the housing crisis across Quebec and Canada. First, we welcomed the Canada-Quebec housing agreement signed in 2020. This agreement is valued at $3.7 billion, half of which comes from the federal government. However, we lamented the fact that negotiations for this agreement spanned three years. Funds that should have gone to Quebec were frozen until the two levels of government found common ground. The Bloc deplores the federal government's constant need to dictate how Quebec spends its money. Quebec wants its piece of the pie, no strings attached. If it had gotten it in 2017, Quebec could have started the construction and renovation of several housing projects, including social housing, three years sooner. This definitely would have eased the current housing crisis.
Unconditional transfers would greatly simplify the funding process. The multitude of different agreements creates more red tape and delays the actual payment of the sums in question. The Bloc also reiterated how important it is that federal funding address first and foremost the needs for social and deeply affordable housing, which are the most critical. Here is what we proposed during the last election:
The Bloc Québécois proposes that Ottawa gradually reinvest in social, community and deeply affordable housing until it reaches 1% of its total annual revenue and implement a consistent and predictable funding stream instead of ad hoc agreements.
The Bloc Québécois proposes that federal surplus properties be repurposed for social, community and deeply affordable housing as a priority in an effort to address the housing crisis.
The Bloc Québécois will propose a tax on real estate speculation to counter artificial overheating of the housing market.
The Bloc Québécois will propose a reform of the home buyers' plan to account for the many different realities and family situations of Quebec households.
The Bloc Québécois proposes that the federal government undertake a financial restructuring of programs under the national housing strategy to create an acquisition fund. This fund would enable co-ops and non-profits to purchase housing buildings that are already on the market, ensure they remain affordable and turn them into social, community and deeply affordable housing.
The Bloc Québécois will ensure that Quebec receives its fair share of funding, without conditions, from federal programs to combat homelessness, while also calling for the funding released in the past year during the pandemic to be made permanent.
In fact, I floated these ideas during the last election campaign in a regional debate in the Eastern Townships. The groups really liked the Bloc's recommendations. However, they lamented the fact that both the Conservatives and the Liberals did not attend the debate. Their absence did not go unnoticed. When parties say they want to make housing a priority but do not show up for the debates, what message does that send?
I am going to take a few moments to quickly talk about homelessness, a phenomenon that is on the rise throughout Quebec and Canada. We are now seeing that homelessness is becoming regionalized. In 2018, 80% of homeless people were in Montreal, compared to 60% in 2022. I am seeing the effects of this in Granby, which is in Shefford, the riding I represent. It is having an impact. The increase in homelessness is caused by issues stemming from the financialization of housing and real estate speculation. All of that reduces the availability of affordable housing.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-356.
I would like to add one last thing. Families and seniors affected by the housing crisis need realistic solutions for social, community and deeply affordable housing that meets their needs. Granby and the broader Shefford community are already concerned about social housing and certainly do not need to be hit with another example of Conservative misinformation. Our communities are capable enough to handle this themselves.
1613 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, net benefit review is extremely important. When we look at any kind of investment, state-owned or otherwise, we want to ensure that Canadians and Quebeckers are getting the best part of that deal for that.
When we look at one aspect, being the Volkswagen and Stellantis deals that have come into Canada, certainly we are evaluating that now. As parliamentarians we look at the net benefit to Canada. It seems that they are investments that, as I mentioned, are more branch-plant investments that did not look at the benefits to our Quebec mining sector. That should have been included to ensure that, any time there was an investment into batteries, we had investments in those mines as well, so that would create more Quebec jobs.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I recall very specifically that, during the 2019 election campaign, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, came to Shefford, to Valcourt, to present the Bloc Québécois's proposals regarding economic nationalism to protect our head offices. That is essential in Quebec. We have a completely different SME model, and Bill C-34 really overlooks that fact.
I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of protecting our economic levers.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a Quebecker; I was born in Montreal. It should come as no surprise to the hon. member that my interests lie in the economic levers of the country, and that would include Quebec. It would also include northern areas of our country and offshore resources, those that are critical to the sustainability of our country. I am interested in all of Canada, not just one part of it.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I recognize that mergers have an impact, but hostile takeovers by foreign companies are especially worrisome. I would like him to comment on that.
Bill C-34 is important and overdue. It is a welcome development, but it is incomplete because it does not actually resolve any of the issues. I would like to know what my colleague sees as the next steps. This is, of course, a good first step, but what will happen next? What can we do to better protect our economic levers?
I am thinking about the head offices in Quebec, in particular. As a Quebecker, I am obviously going to stand up for my province.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34 for the second time. This bill amends the Investment Canada Act. It is well intentioned, but there is still a lot of work to do.
The bill reinforces controls and increases the powers of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry regarding foreign investments in Canada. As we did at second reading of the bill last winter, Bloc Québécois members will continue to fully support any action aimed at better protecting Quebec's economy and Canada's economy against potentially detrimental foreign interests.
I will get right to the crux of the issue. We are debating today the amendments made by the committee. The bill is back in the House to be debated again, and I am glad that my colleagues on the committee were able to look at this closely and broaden the notion of sensitive sectors to include intellectual property and databases that contain personal information. We all agree that this improvement makes the bill stronger and that we should support it.
We also applaud the committee for rejecting the Conservatives' proposed amendments. Their proposal was intended to label every state-owned enterprise not run by our Five Eyes partners as hostile, which would have threatened Quebec's interests given that 40% of European investments in Canada are made in Quebec.
Let us take the example of Airbus, a French-German state-owned company that manufactures its A220 aircraft in Mirabel in partnership with the Quebec government. This project, which generates economic spin-offs for Quebec and Quebeckers, would have been compromised by the Conservative Party when, in fact, it is a collaboration with democratic and transparent states but, most importantly, with allies.
There is also the question of coordinating with the U.S. system. The proposed new review process essentially mirrors what is being done in the United States. Its adoption is intended to increase our American partners' confidence so that they continue to consider us a reliable and preferred partner within their supply chains. It has to be said that trade with the Americans is very important, and I think this bill is a step in that direction.
In March, when the debates clearly indicated that Bill C-34 enjoyed the support of the House, the United States agreed to include Canada in its critical minerals supply chain, which was very good news. This is a sign that the bill achieved its goal and helped strengthen our partners' trust in us.
Without a doubt, Bill C‑34 adds several useful weapons to our legislative arsenal. However, I must emphasize that these changes are still very incomplete. This is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in scrutinizing foreign investment in general. I am going to explain why.
The bill we are studying covers only those investments that could affect national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, and targeting it is justified. However, when we look at the big picture, we see that it represents only a tiny portion of all foreign investment in Canada.
I am going to present a few statistics that will undoubtedly convince my audience. Of the 1,255 investment projects submitted in 2022, only 24 would trigger a review under the new rules proposed in Bill C-34. That is just a grain of sand on a beach. Barely 2% of all investment projects would trigger a security review.
The other 1,221 investments would remain subject to the old rules. These rules provide for a review to determine whether a project is of net economic benefit to Canada. However, a review is only carried out when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold. That is the problem. I hope the government pays attention to this. Over the years, the threshold at which a review is triggered has increased considerably. Projects are getting bigger and require even more investment.
In the past 10 years alone, investment projects have more than tripled. The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review.
Getting back to last year's figures, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. Eight projects out of a total of 1,255 were submitted for review under the act. That is less than 1%, although the review rate was 10% as recently as 2009. The holes in this safety net have become far too big for it to be effective. The measure might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. That is why we need to go much further.
I would like to draw a parallel with history. In building our future, it is always important to be cognizant of the past, in order to avoid past mistakes and learn from past successes. I would like to share with the House some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.
Since the Quiet Revolution, the Quebec government has established significant economic and financial levers. These tools have allowed it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism aiming to give Quebeckers better control of their economy. This does not mean that Quebec is closed to foreign investment. We are open to it, of course, because it is a driver of growth and development. However, we believe we must support our own businesses to help them grow and seek to preserve our headquarters, which are significant decision-makers.
I will provide an example. In 1988, Bernard Landry, former premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Québécois, campaigned to promote the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which was signed with the United States and Mexico in the early 1990s. As we know, Quebec's strategy worked well when we explain economic nationalism and the protection of headquarters in terms of the large subsidiaries worldwide. Banking on the development of these businesses, we saw the growth of many flagships whose headquarters are in Quebec. The presence of these headquarters is significant. Structurally, businesses with headquarters in Quebec tend to create jobs, attract talent, and promote sourcing from local suppliers, creating a virtuous economic cycle. Companies also tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their headquarters are located.
There are also reasons for adopting this legislation. There is no shortage of examples that demonstrate the harmful effects of ill-advised foreign investments on our economy. I will name a few. The loss of decision-making levers and headquarters condemns us to be a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Everyone remembers Lowe's acquisition of Rona. Let us also consider the weakening of Montreal's financial position as a leading world financial centre; the total reliance of our businesses on foreign providers and on supply chains that are more vulnerable than ever; the possible land grabs by rich foreigners who have no interest in our social and economic priorities; and the loss of control of our natural resources, which are the greatest wealth our territory has to offer.
The Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such, it has suggested three types of tangible changes for the government to focus on. The first is to lower the review threshold so that the government has the power to review more investment projects. According to the numbers, it looks at barely 2% or even 1% of certain projects. There is a huge gap to overcome for a bill to be able to ensure better security overall, but also better protection from foreign investments. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy, such as leading-edge sectors, land ownership or control over natural resources. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents. Intellectual property is the knowledge we develop. We need to protect that knowledge, including in the pharmaceutical sector. Some Quebec companies had molecule patents that were then purchased by major pharmaceutical companies and moved overseas.
National security is important, but we must not overlook economic security and long-term prosperity. Let us be clear. This is not about closing the door on foreign investment. Quebec and Canada must remain economically open to the world.
In closing, as Jacques Parizeau wrote in 2001, before China even became a member of the World Trade Organization, “We do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves”.
Unfortunately, the weakening of the Investment Canada Act has caused those levees to break.
1464 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think I was rather clear in my speech.
The Conservatives' amendment involved rejecting any projects that do not come from the Five Eyes countries. That would threaten Quebec's economy.
I will give the same example I gave before. Forty percent of Europe's investments in Canada are made in Quebec. That means that a major part of Quebec's economy and all of the foreign investment projects would be automatically at the tipping point.
Once again, I think that, yes, it is possible to find a balance in all this, but we completely disagreed with the Conservative Party's amendment.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:04:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Hélène Alarie, the Bloc Québécois member for the riding of Louis-Hébert from 1997 to 2000, passed away last week.
Without ever raising her voice or losing her cheerful demeanour, Hélène was a calm but forceful presence and a trailblazer. In fact, she was the first woman agronomist in Quebec. While the pesticide industry was in its heyday, she promoted a kind of agriculture that was more respectful of the Quebec lands she loved so deeply.
As a member of Parliament, she championed the debate on genetically modified organisms and introduced a bill on mandatory GMO labelling at a time when no one had heard of GMOs before.
As vice-president of the Bloc Québécois from 2001 to 2007, she reminded us about the importance of rural and remote Quebec. After retiring, she took up the cause of the Scottish separatist movement, seeing the obvious parallels with Quebec.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank Hélène Alarie and offer our deepest sympathies to her loved ones and to everyone else fortunate enough to have known such a remarkable woman.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:12:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Bloc-Liberal coalition, last Friday's announcement is humiliating for Quebeckers. The Prime Minister must stop ignoring Quebec and announce the full, not just temporary, withdrawal of the second carbon tax, a tax that adds 17¢ to every litre of gas.
This tax, which was supported by the Bloc Québécois, proves that it is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. The impact of this inflationary spending is proving to be disastrous for the population as a whole. As evidence of this, the increase in food bank usage is unprecedented.
My riding, Beauce, does not have public transit. Parents have to use their cars to get to work, to take their children to activities and, above all, to go to the grocery store to buy food for their families. Some 82% of food bank users are working people who can no longer make ends meet, and 35% of food bank users are children.
This Bloc-Liberal coalition is completely out of touch with reality. These carbon taxes are having a direct impact on Canadians' ability to feed themselves. It is time to bring back a common-sense Conservative government.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:16:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, October 30 to November 3 is national unemployed workers week, organized by the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi.
I commend this initiative, which rallies unemployed workers' rights groups from several regions of Quebec to remind the Liberal government of its many broken promises to reform the employment insurance system.
The new Minister of Employment recently said that he wants a resilient program. If so, there is only option: a complete overhaul of the unfair employment insurance system as it currently exists.
The Bloc Québécois has been calling for such a reform, and its tireless efforts in this direction will continue. In these uncertain economic times, the need for reform is clearer than ever. Reform is not just necessary, it is urgent.
In a spirit of solidarity, I wish everyone a good national unemployed workers week.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:20:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister has finally admitted that he is not worth the cost. How many years have I been saying that the carbon tax will do nothing for the environment and will hurt families?
I was just moments away from holding a massive rally in a Liberal riding to axe the carbon tax when the Prime Minister did a complete 180. However, he did not eliminate the second carbon tax, which applies in Quebec with the Bloc Québécois's support. Will the Prime Minister be consistent and eliminate the second carbon tax for Quebeckers and all Canadians?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:27:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of businesses say that the Canada emergency business account has put them in jeopardy. The pandemic hurt them. Inflation is hurting them. Interest rates are hurting them. Forecast consumption by Quebec and Canadian consumers is hurting them.
We requested an additional one-year extension. We requested some form of accommodation from the banks. We requested a credible point person who would be available for these businesses.
Is the government ready to act?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:28:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about real businesses, real entrepreneurs, real jobs. We are talking about a real economic impact on the Canadian and Quebec economies. Everyone, including every single province, is saying that the current extensions and deadlines are insufficient and that businesses are in danger of closing down.
This is serious. It is more serious than the fictions some people here are spouting. These are real jobs, real businesses. This measure is a helping hand that would cost next to nothing.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:36:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, now we have just been treated to the great carbon tax fable: first, it was revenue neutral; second, we get more money than we pay into it; third, it fights climate change. It does none of those things. What it does, and what the Prime Minister has admitted by pausing the carbon tax, is that it makes it more expensive for everyone. The real tragedy is for Canadians outside Atlantic Canada. Why? It is not being paused, and most people heat their homes in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, B.C. and Quebec not with heating oil. It does not apply across the country.
Will they stop playing politics, picking winners and losers, dividing Canadians and axe the tax?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:38:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Prime Minister looked at the polls as our leader arrived in Nova Scotia. He started to panic. What did he do? He temporarily suspended the carbon tax in the Atlantic provinces.
His environment minister said yesterday in an interview that he was not willing to help out Canadians in other provinces, not even back home in the minister's and my home province of Quebec. That is humiliating for Quebeckers, who also bear the brunt of the carbon tax. Quebeckers also have to buy food and fill up their cars.
Will the Prime Minister announce a complete, not just temporary, suspension of the second carbon tax that applies to Quebec?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 2:39:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as for the tax, I watched the show not once, not twice, but three times, and it was clear what the minister said. He even said that, as long as he is environment minister, there would never, ever be any further changes to the carbon tax elsewhere in Canada. He essentially confirmed that there will be no other pauses as long as he is in that role. It remains to be seen what the Prime Minister will do with that.
For now, I would also like to say that the Bloc Québécois, which supports the carbon tax, says it does not apply to Quebec and wants to drastically increase it.
At the end of the day, what is this government doing?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:01:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the second carbon tax affects Quebec, and it is having a catastrophic impact on the lives of our constituents. Our food banks are overwhelmed and that includes Frigos pleins, Comptoir Le Grenier and L'Essential des Etchemins in my community. One in 10 people are using food banks.
After eight years under this government, with the assistance of the Bloc Québécois, everything is broken. It is costly to vote Bloc Québécois. The announcement that the Prime Minister made on Friday is not enough. He must abolish the full tax everywhere. When will the Prime Minister announce that the tax has been completely eliminated?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:02:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit difficult for me to speak after this member who, for many years, was part of a government that was the first in North America to implement a carbon tax, the Government of Quebec. She was part of the government that did that.
An article in this morning's edition of La Presse said that Quebec had a record rainfall of 265 millimetres, the most rain it has seen since 1940. The impacts of climate change are real, particularly in the agricultural industry. They are driving up the cost of food. This summer in Quebec, there was $150 million in damages in the agricultural industry alone. Everyone pays for that.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:02:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years with this Bloc Québécois-backed government in power, parents are struggling. They have to cut back on everything, including meeting their children's needs.
I do not know why people on the other side are laughing; there is nothing funny about what I am saying. A family in Lévis says they have to pay almost twice as much for food because of inflation. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. They want to drastically increase the carbon tax. The second carbon tax applies in Quebec and hurts our people.
When will the Prime Minister abandon his carbon tax throughout the country?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:16:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the House (a) take note that 872,000 Quebecers used food aid in 2023 and that 2,000,000 Canadians, including 640,000 children, also used a food bank in March 2023 alone;
(b) take note that 71% of organizations working for food security in Quebec ran out of food in 2023; and
(c) call on the government to do more to fight food insecurity, while respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
